MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE

The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's sitting, pursuant to leave given on 16 June.
	Whereupon, Sir Alan Haselhurst, The Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Transas Group Bill (By Order)

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Ordered,
	That Keith Hill and Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Bob Ainsworth and Jim Fitzpatrick be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Oral Answers to Questions

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Antisocial Behaviour

Jim Knight: What his Department's role is in reducing antisocial behaviour in local communities.

Phil Hope: The Government recognise the impact that antisocial behaviour can have on local communities and people's quality of life. That is why we are taking strong and concerted action across Government to tackle problems of antisocial and nuisance behaviour. Examples of action being taken by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister include neighbourhood warden schemes, new measures to deal with antisocial tenants, and a new package of more than £200 million to create cleaner, safer, more attractive local environments.

Jim Knight: I thank the Minister for that reply and congratulate him warmly on his appointment.
	Last Friday, I visited Inspector Holland, at Swanage police station, to discuss antisocial behaviour in that part of my constituency. He informed me of the reluctance of many local agencies to use their existing powers for antisocial behaviour orders. Will the Minister assure me that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will issue clear guidance on how councils should use the new powers in the legislation that we are currently examining in this place and elsewhere, so that, even in Tory councils, where they are happy to do nothing and then blame the Government, we can ensure that the problem of antisocial behaviour is tackled properly throughout the country?

Phil Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks.
	I agree that it is important that local agencies make use of all the powers available to them to tackle antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend has been at the forefront of local campaigns to reduce that problem in his constituency, pressing local councils to take more decisive action. I take this opportunity to urge all councils to use their new powers and the new resources that the Government have provided to tackle a problem that blights too many of our local communities.

Mark Field: I, too, congratulate the Minister on his new appointment.
	I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can be held personally responsible for the new £200 million package to which he referred, but I am keen to know his view on how that package of measures to get rid of antisocial behaviour ties in with the Licensing Bill, to which we gave a Third Reading only the other night, and its plans to allow 24-hour drinking on all our streets—especially as regards central London.

Phil Hope: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks.
	The hon. Gentleman must understand that we are working across Government to implement a range of programmes to tackle antisocial behaviour, so that on our streets we see new neighbourhood wardens and new community support officers who will be working hard in their areas, with local communities, doing a different job from that of the police, to tackle the kind of problem to which he referred. I am confident that they will be able to take serious steps to reduce crime rates and to ensure that the trend continues downward.

Graham Allen: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to the Treasury Bench in a long-overdue promotion.
	As one of my hon. Friend's first duties, will he arrange a meeting with his counterpart at the Department for Education and Skills? My hon. Friend will know from his previous work that one of the keys to tackling antisocial behaviour is developing parenting and social skills in young people before they become antisocial. Will he discuss that with the DFES and consider asking his colleagues to include those skills for young people in the national curriculum?

Phil Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks.
	My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point. As well as measures to tackle crime, we are introducing measures to tackle the underlying causes of crime—[Hon. Members: "Ah."] My hon. Friend is right to point that out. Many of our constituencies benefit from programmes such as sure start, as well as from the children's fund, from Connexions and the youth service, which work with young people and families to deal with problems of low self-esteem and under-achievement at school. Those programmes are raising standards, attainment and aspirations in some of the poorest neighbourhoods in our communities.

Eric Pickles: I, too, warmly welcome and congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new position. He was a distinguished Back Bencher and I am sure that he will quickly get used to defending the indefensible.
	Although the hon. Gentleman has been at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for only a short time, does not he feel a degree of embarrassment that the average number of antisocial behaviour orders is less than 5 per cent. of what the Government predicted? Does he blame local councils for that, or is the real culprit a Government who mistake press releases for law enforcement? Local authorities can use such orders only against a backdrop of neighbourhood policing, so will he support the Conservative call for an extra 40,000 police officers on our streets?

Phil Hope: Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, and I am glad that I do not have to defend a record of crime doubling under the Conservatives or to go into the next general election defending a pledge to cut public spending by 20 per cent. The facts are that there have been 785 antisocial behaviour orders up to last November, that the threat of such orders can have an impact on reducing crime and that the new Anti-social Behaviour Bill, which I hope the Conservative party will stop its foolish opposition to and start to support, will introduce new measures to clamp down on such problems in our communities.

Council Housing

Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on his policy on funding council housing.

John Prescott: Our policy is to enable local authorities properly to manage and maintain their stock, while charging fair and affordable rents. All councils are required to bring their stock up to the decent homes standard. Indeed, since 1997, we have reduced the number of non-decent social homes by 500,000, and we are on track to ensure that all social housing is decent by 2010.

Brian Iddon: In a recent report in Property People, Lord Rooker is quoted as telling tenants in Hammersmith and Fulham that there would be "no exceptions" to the policy of making councils choose between stock transfer, the private finance initiative or arm's length management organisation options. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether that report is accurate? If it is not, will he assure the tenants who vote against those options that their local authorities will be adequately funded to meet the Government's very worthy decent homes target?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend exactly reports the options that we have got. The three options, as reported by Lord Rooker, are absolutely right, but there is an option for local authorities to stay with their housing stock if they wish. Those are the choices that they have, but we have made considerable changes and investment in housing has gone from about £750 million to £2.1 billion—a tremendous increase, against the Tory record of reducing housing investment every year.

Gary Streeter: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that, at the end of 1997, 25,000 social houses were built in this country, but by the end of last year, the figure had fallen to 14,500 social houses built six years into a Labour Government? Why has that happened? Is not he ashamed that a Labour Government have turned their back on some of the country's poorest people?

John Prescott: It is a bit of a cheek for the hon. Gentleman to say that—he belonged to a Government who had a housing record that was, frankly, scandalous. They left us with a £19 billion disinvestment, which we have just referred to, and a year-on-year decrease in housing investment. As I told the House when I launched the sustainable community package, the record in housing of all Governments, over decades, has been poor and unacceptable. That is why we have invested the largest amount of money ever given to a housing programme—£22 billion. We intend to reverse the trend, and we have made major changes in improving the housing stock. The amount of money available is not enough to meet every demand, but it reverses the decline that we saw under the Tories, who produced a massive repair backlog and a year-on-year decrease and gave away £40 billion in subsidising the right to buy, instead of improving homes for the people. Half a million homes were repossessed between 1990 and 1997. That is the record of a Tory Government, and we will not take any lecture from them on housing policy.

Clive Soley: My right hon. Friend will have seen the report from Hammersmith and Fulham, which was well prepared and indicated that tenants wanted to stay with the council. Indeed, I gave evidence to that very excellent committee. However, one of the problems in Ealing—another part of my constituency—is that a Conservative council doubled the rent overnight. When that happens, as I pointed out to the tenants, one of the problems of remaining under council control is that they become victims of political change at very short notice. If we want good quality housing in this country, we need a genuine long-term commitment, free of that sort of political gerrymandering of rents.

John Prescott: Indeed, that is the record that we inherited, and we have given local authorities the option to change from that system and to have a greater opportunity for continuity, to get the proper investment and to have decent quality homes. That is the dividing line between our policies and those that we inherited from the Tories.

David Curry: Does the Deputy Prime Minister regard it as indispensable, in order to meet his communities plan targets, for private developers to be given access to Housing Corporation loans?

John Prescott: Loans?

David Curry: Housing Corporation funding.

John Prescott: Housing Corporation funding is available for that and has been used in the past. We are looking at a range of public and private financing. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows from his experience in government, the reality of the housing situation is that there is a lack of adequate resources. We have turned more to using public and private resources to lift the amount of investment for housing. We are considering using private resources for housing corporations.

Clive Betts: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), council tenants in my constituency warmly welcome the Government's commitment to the decent homes target and the extra funding that has been made available for council housing. However, they are against stock transfer and want to remain with the local authority. Will my right hon. Friend assure them that if they stay with the local authority, funding will still be available for the decent homes target to be met?

John Prescott: I understand my hon. Friend's point. He must know from his experience on housing that the disinvestment that occurred in the local authority housing stock means that something like £19 billion has to be found. We have to restart a housing programme. There are major problems in the south and the north and we need resources from public and private sources as well as the Exchequer. Given those circumstances, we have had to say that we will try to provide adequate funding for those who want to stay with local authorities, but we have provided alternatives, which the majority of councils are using to bring together public and private financing so that investment in housing to correct the disinvestment can be achieved more quickly.

Simon Hughes: Is the Deputy Prime Minister willing to consider the project just down the road at Elephant and Castle, which he knows about, and the project on the Aylesbury estate, which he and I have talked about, to find out how we can achieve what he told his colleagues? Where a regeneration scheme that is supported by the Government is going ahead, is there a way in which people who want to be council tenants can be assured of the same funding for new homes in the public sector as would be available if they transferred to registered social landlords?

John Prescott: Yes, but I have made it clear that there are a number of choices: regeneration programmes, private finance initiative programmes, stock transfer programmes and ALMO programmes. They all represent different approaches and they increase resources. I am trying to be fair to all sectors of the housing community, which is what the programmes are about. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to the House that there are far too many extraneous conversations going on, the total volume of which is making it difficult to hear both questions and answers?

Regional Government

John Grogan: What representations he has received concerning the case for a referendum on regional government in Yorkshire.

John Prescott: On Monday 16 June, I announced that Yorkshire and Humberside would be one of the first regions to move toward a referendum for an elected assembly. Our soundings exercise shows that there is a high level of interest in the referendum across all groups and interests in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.

John Grogan: If the Yorkshire and Humberside assembly is to have effective powers to plan integrated public transport throughout the region and perhaps to initiate measures such as a region-wide concessionary fare pass for pensioners, will there be a continuing need for separate passenger transport authorities in west and south Yorkshire?

John Prescott: There is no intention of changing the passenger transport authorities at this stage—I think that they are doing quite a good job. Of course, the regional dimension of transport is important. We would give an assembly, especially an elected assembly, the opportunity to make decisions on transport in the regions, and in the context of a region, rather than only with regard to an area covered by a passenger transport authority. A passenger transport authority not only plans for the area for which it is responsible, but has responsibility for delivery. I am sure that there will be a close working relationship between the bodies.

David Davis: May I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and add my congratulations to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), on his arrival to the Front Bench? After his time with me on the Public Accounts Committee, I was unsurprised by his characteristically good opening performance.
	The Deputy Prime Minister's idea of a good response is 833 people in favour of a referendum out of 5 million people in Yorkshire and Humberside. If a referendum is a good idea when 833 people want one, why is it a bad idea when 1.7 million people want one?

John Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to 8,000. As I think we made clear in our exchanges yesterday, that does not represent the total number of people who expressed a point of view. There were 50,000 people overall. Responses on petitions, for example, which may include thousands or hundreds of signatures, were considered as one response. We have had exchanges on the subject before. I justified the decision to the House on the basis that the three northern areas have shown an overwhelming interest in a referendum. We intend to give them that opportunity. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the one county council in our Yorkshire area—the Tory North Yorkshire county council—also wanted the referendum. I am happy to agree to that.

David Davis: I am interested that the right hon. Gentleman returns to the principle of the block vote in his calculation of who supports his idea and I look forward to meeting him on the hustings. BBC "Look North", not known as a Tory front organisation, particularly as his son works for it, carried out a survey this week of 5,000 people—five times the number of people who responded to the right hon. Gentleman in Yorkshire—and nine out of 10 thought that regional assemblies were a bad idea. Why does he still insist on spending millions of pounds of public money and disrupting perfectly good local government to pursue his obsession with this daft idea?

John Prescott: The same BBC carried out a poll that said that 72 per cent. wanted a referendum. I am prepared to accept that. There will be a referendum and by God I look forward to debating that with the right hon. Gentleman.

Home Energy Efficiency

Helen Clark: What plans he has to issue guidance to local planning authorities concerning minimum energy efficiency standards in (a) new and (b) existing housing.

Keith Hill: Although we have no plans to issue specific guidance to planning authorities on energy efficiency standards for housing, the Government have recently brought in a number of measures to help improve energy efficiency in homes.
	For example, the new building regulations, which came into effect just over a year ago, are expected to improve energy performance in new homes by some 25 per cent. The draft housing Bill, published in March this year, aims to replace the present fitness standard with a new housing health and safety rating system, which will allow local authorities to tackle cold hazard in existing homes, especially in the private rented sector. Also, our so-called "decent home" programme, begun in the year 2000 and to be completed in 2010, will bring all social housing and much private rented accommodation up to a reasonable degree of warmth through more efficient heating and better insulation.

Helen Clark: I am grateful for that reply, but is my hon. Friend aware that as many as 100 local authorities have reported pathetic and paltry increases in domestic energy efficiency of as little as 1 per cent. in their areas since 1996? Is he prepared to wield the big stick and issue directions to them to up their performances?

Keith Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. She is a doughty and knowledgeable campaigner on green issues. However, this time she has not got it quite right. The truth is that energy conservation authorities report improvements in domestic energy efficiency on an annual basis. Only one local authority reported a total overall improvement of 1 per cent. or less since 1996. Let me reassure my hon. Friend that we expect local authorities to continue improving their performance on domestic energy efficiency. To that end, the energy White Paper contains the commitment to review existing guidance to energy conservation authorities on complying with the requirements of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995.

Matthew Green: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as a Minister. Will he admit that the Government have not done enough to improve energy efficiency in houses? In particular, they have failed to take advantage of design conditions that would improve energy efficiency by maximising the use of natural daylight and heating. Will he introduce plans to encourage local authorities to improve their planning process to ensure that energy efficiency is paid the highest regard in new housing?

Keith Hill: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I am grateful for his kind remarks. As I said, there are no plans to issue further guidance relating solely to energy efficiency in housing. However, many of our initiatives cover such matters more generally. For example, we are currently examining, together with other Departments, how to bring the use of renewables and the improvement of energy efficiency and its development more within the scope of the planning system. We are proceeding in the context of the review of planning policy guidance note 22 and the Government's wider planning reforms in a way that will not impose undue burdens on developers.

Local Government

Valerie Davey: What progress he has made with the balance of funding review of local government.

Nick Raynsford: The steering group's first meeting on 28 April discussed key issues from the local and central Government perspectives. Our next meeting on 25 June will consider papers on principles, accountability, equalisation and international comparisons, along with proposals for further research. We will invite interested parties to submit papers later this summer.

Valerie Davey: What greater freedoms and responsibilities will that allow local authorities?

Nick Raynsford: As my hon. Friend knows, we set out in our White Paper, which we published 18 months ago, proposed extensions of freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities, and we are legislating for that in our current Local Government Bill. However, the balance of funding review will explore a number of channels in which it is possible to extend that agenda to offer greater freedom for local authorities, particularly where that helps to drive up their performance and deliver higher quality services to their residents.

Edward Davey: Does the Minister acknowledge that there can be a significant shift in the balance of funding only if local government has a fair local tax base? Will the Minister's review therefore consider scrapping the unfair Tory council tax? Does he not recognise that for councils like Kingston, which already raises 41 per cent. of its budget through the unfair council tax, the unfairness of the tax means that the burden on pensioners and those on low incomes is already far too harsh?

Nick Raynsford: We have not ruled out any options from the review. We will take a broad view and consider a range of options. However, before rushing to precipitate conclusions, the hon. Gentleman ought to give consideration to one important factor: the ease of collection of forms of taxation. He will realise that there are certain advantages in taxation systems that relate to property, where evasion is much more difficult than with some of the other types of taxation that I know the Liberal Democrats tend to favour.

National Assembly for Wales

Ian Lucas: If he will submit evidence to the commission on the powers and electoral arrangements of the National Assembly for Wales.

Yvette Cooper: The Government have provided the Richard commission with a memorandum of evidence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has given oral evidence. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has not been invited to give evidence and would not expect to do so.

Ian Lucas: Before the reshuffle, the Deputy Prime Minister had overall control of relations between the UK Government and the National Assembly for Wales. Does he retain that position, and if so, what is the role of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs? Is he, perhaps, head of a new Department of administrative affairs?

Yvette Cooper: The position was set out last week. The Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for regional government in the English regions. My noble Friend the Lord Falconer is responsible for overall devolution issues arising out of the Act of Settlement, and the five people currently responsible for those settlement issues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are moving to the Department for Constitutional Affairs, as set out last week.

Elfyn Llwyd: On Monday the Deputy Prime Minister said that some of the regional assemblies in England would be accorded tax-varying powers. Why has that consistently been ruled out for the Welsh Assembly?

Yvette Cooper: That was not what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said this week.

Postal Ballots

Paddy Tipping: When he last met the Electoral Commission to discuss the all-postal vote pilot ballots and their possible extension.

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions met the chair of the Electoral Commission on 22 May. Issues discussed included the highly successful pilot schemes held in May.

Paddy Tipping: Given the success of the schemes and the increased turnout, is it not important that in 2004 at the local elections and the Euro elections, people still have the chance of all-postal ballots? What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that that happens?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that the all-postal ballots increased turnout on average from about 33 per cent. to just under 50 per cent. We are looking at the implications for the combination of the Euro elections and the local government elections next year.

Homelessness

John Randall: How many homeless households have been accommodated in bed-and-breakfast hostels since 1997.

Keith Hill: I have placed in the Library a table detailing the number of homeless households accommodated in bed-and-breakfast hotels since 1997. The number increased from an average of about 4,400 in 1997 to more than 13,000 by the end of September 2002. That is plainly unsatisfactory and we have been taking action to address the issue, especially where it affects children. I am pleased to say that figures published yesterday show a fall in the number of such households to 12,200 in March this year. Importantly, the number of families with children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has been reduced even more significantly, by almost 30 per cent. over the past year.

John Randall: I shall certainly look at those figures. It is nice to hear a Minister admit that something has gone wrong. Why does he think that it has gone wrong so dramatically?

Keith Hill: There are a variety of reasons, including such sadnesses as family break-up and evictions, and the general increase in house prices. The Government are committed to dealing with these things and we are investing new funds in social housing to eradicate the scourge of homelessness in our society.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Eric Illsley: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 June.

Tony Blair: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Eric Illsley: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reject the artificially generated hysteria about the Convention on the Future of Europe? Will he confirm that, when it comes to the ratification of any future European treaty, he will do exactly what previous Conservative Prime Ministers have done—reject a referendum and ratify through an Act of Parliament in this House?

Tony Blair: That is the procedure that we will follow. Of course, we have said that, should we recommend to people that we join the European single currency, there will be a referendum on that issue. There is no need to have a referendum on the Convention or the intergovernmental conference because they do not alter the fundamental constitutional arrangements. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it is very important to reject the position of those who, as we have seen from the Conservative spokesman on the Convention, would want to change the essential terms of Britain's membership of the European Union.

Iain Duncan Smith: Yesterday, the new Leader of the House—part-time Leader of the House—said that he had given up a third of his job in order to be an effective Welsh Secretary. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how much time the Secretary of State for Transport has given up to be an effective Scottish Secretary?

Tony Blair: My right hon. Friend will spend as much time on Scottish affairs as is required, as he has already said, but let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman what the Conservative position is on the Secretary of State for Scotland. [Hon. Members: "Order!"] The position on which he stood at the last election is this—[Hon. Members: "Order!"] This is what the Conservative manifesto said: "We will keep"—[Hon. Members: "Order!"]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal for calm and dignity in the House, and I would ask the Prime Minister to remember that his prime responsibility is to answer for the Government.

Tony Blair: And in answering for the Government, I want to say why I agree with the proposition that I am about to read out from the Conservative party manifesto:
	"We will keep the position of Secretary of State for Scotland with the holder of that position also having an additional UK role within the Cabinet."
	So we have implemented Conservative party manifesto policy.

Iain Duncan Smith: Let me remind the Prime Minister that he was elected to implement his own manifesto, and ask him where in his manifesto did he make a pledge to have a part-time Welsh Secretary, a part-time Scottish Secretary, a part-time Leader of the House or, for that matter, a part-time Secretary of State for Transport?

Tony Blair: rose—

Iain Duncan Smith: I have not finished yet. The Prime Minister will not get away as easily as that.
	Let me remind the Prime Minister what he actually did pledge. Eight months ago, at the Labour party conference, he said that transport under Labour was "probably the worst area of public services". Will he explain how full-time chaos on the roads can be dealt with by a part-time Secretary of State for Transport?

Tony Blair: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to acknowledge that I now agree with Conservative party policy, at least in relation to the Secretary of State for Scotland. As for transport, we are investing billions of pounds in our transport system. That is public investment, and also private sector investment.
	The problem that the right hon. Gentleman must explain is this. That investment programme was put to the House a short time ago, and it was voted against by the Conservative party. How can the right hon. Gentleman say that he is going to improve the state of Britain's roads and railways when he has opposed the investment that will make that possible?

Iain Duncan Smith: It is the usual story. The Prime Minister is rattling out the same old Labour lie machine, every single time. [Interruption.] Oh yes.
	Let us remind the Prime Minister exactly what state all his transport policy is in. One in five trains is now late. Train services are being cut by his Government. Train fares are set to be increased by his Government. Congestion on the roads is growing every single day.
	So the Prime Minister thinks that a record like that—a record of chaos like that—can be dealt with by appointing a part-time Secretary of State for Transport. He must be the only person who does. Is that not the real reason why every pledge he makes is broken, and no one believes a single word he says any more?

Tony Blair: First, let me say something about rail punctuality. Until the Hatfield rail crash, it was more or less constant. It is true that since Hatfield we have realised that the state of the railway infrastructure was infinitely worse than was anticipated. It is for that very reason, however, that we are committed to substantial investment. There are billions of pounds of public money, and also private sector money.
	Now—can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is in favour of that extra investment or not? One thing is for sure: spending less money on transport is not going to help it.

Michael Meacher: May I ask a question about the current public debate on genetically modified food? The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that a decision on whether to commercialise GM crops should be made on scientific grounds, and that it should be established whether there is a risk to health or the environment. Quite so.
	Is the Prime Minister aware that there have been no human feeding trials in either the United States or the United Kingdom to establish the health or biochemical effects of consuming GM foods? Does he agree that until such tests are carried out, an important option for the Government when they are reaching a decision later this year is the exercise of the precautionary principle? Does he agree with that, and will he ensure that it is taken on board very seriously?

Tony Blair: I certainly think it is very important for us to take on board all the issues relating to GM food. The only other thing I have said, and I say it again, is that it is important for the whole debate to be conducted on the basis of scientific evidence, not on the basis of prejudice.
	Let me also point out that the biotech industry in this country is immensely important, and it is important for its future that it recognises that decisions made by Government will be based on proper scientific evidence. I say this to my right hon. Friend in all sincerity: it worries me that there are voices, here and in the rest of Europe, that are not prepared to give enough consideration to the potential benefits as well as the potential downsides. All I say is that it is important to the future of our country and other countries that the decision is made on proper scientific grounds.

Charles Kennedy: When both the former Foreign Secretary and the former Secretary of State for International Development told the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday that they had been told by MI6 that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction capable of posing a direct threat to British security, were they correct?

Tony Blair: The intelligence that we put out in the dossier last September described absolutely accurately the position of the Government. That position is that Saddam was indeed a threat to his region and to the wider world. I always made it clear that the issue was not whether he was about to launch an immediate strike on Britain: the issue was whether he posed a threat to his region and to the wider world. [Interruption.] I must say that I thought that Conservative Members, who are muttering, agreed with that on the basis of the same intelligence.

Charles Kennedy: But given the seriousness of the charges made by those two former Cabinet Ministers yesterday, does the Prime Minister think that this can be adequately investigated by a Foreign Affairs Committee to which he refuses to give evidence and a Joint Intelligence Committee which he controls? Can we not have a proper independent judicial inquiry?

Tony Blair: The right hon. Gentleman says that I control the Intelligence and Security Committee, but he has a member of his own party on that Committee; I do not believe that he would agree with the assessment that he is controlled by me. There are senior members of the Conservative party on that Committee; they are not controlled by me, either. It is headed by a senior former member of the Government. It is entirely capable of investigating all the facts and getting to the truth. I hope that when the truth is finally told by that Committee, we will then have a debate on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of speculation, the vast bulk of which, I may say, is completely untrue.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: The Prime Minister is aware that many of us in this House and outside it have long campaigned for the Executive functions of the Lord Chancellor to be transferred from an unelected, patronage-appointed official to a Secretary of State in this House answerable to the elected House of Commons. Will he confirm that under the new reforms those functions will now be exercised by an unelected, patronage-appointed official in the House of Lords answerable to the unelected House of Lords?

Tony Blair: I do not think that many people would recognise my hon. Friend's description of the concept of an independent judicial appointments commission, which is what people have long campaigned for. I have to say to him that it does not surprise me in the least that having campaigned for many years for us to do something, when we do it he then opposes it.

David Ruffley: The Prime Minister will not allow Mr. Alastair Campbell to give evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Government's handling of information in the run-up to the war. Can the Prime Minister please tell us what he is trying to hide?

Tony Blair: It has never been the case that officials have given evidence to Select Committees, neither is it the case that the Prime Minister does so, except in very limited circumstances, which we have set out. We have made it absolutely clear, however, that we will co-operate with the Intelligence and Security Committee in any way that it seeks.

Paul Farrelly: My right hon. Friend will be aware that my borough, Newcastle-under-Lyme, has made great strides in regenerating our old coal-mining areas, not least through the efforts of our recently retired council leader, Eddie Boden. Does the Prime Minister recognise, however, that in view of continued job losses in the pottery industry, we need to deliver strategic investment and vision for north Staffordshire as a whole? Would he therefore assist us in that by reviewing the efforts of our regional development agency, Advantage West Midlands, in the potteries, and by ensuring that when Government jobs and agencies are relocated outside London, the claims of north Staffordshire feature strongly on the list?

Tony Blair: First, I should express my condolences to those constituents of my hon. Friend who have lost their jobs at the Wedgwood pottery: I know that that will be a huge blow to the workers and their families. He is absolutely right to stress the importance of Advantage West Midlands. In fact, we have more or less doubled the budget over the past few years. My hon. Friend is also right in saying that there is a strong case for relocating some Government functions outside London, and I can assure him that we will take into account very carefully the position that he outlines.

Iain Duncan Smith: Some 42 million people were consulted on regional assemblies. How many people said that they wanted one?

Tony Blair: In the three areas where we said we wanted a referendum, people also wanted a referendum.

Iain Duncan Smith: Of the 42 million people, a mere 4,000 said yes. That is 0.01 per cent. of the whole population. Will the Prime Minister explain why, when only 4,000 people say yes to a referendum, they get it, but when more than 1.5 million people say they want a referendum on the European constitution, he says no?

Tony Blair: There should be a referendum in circumstances in which there is a proposal to alter fundamentally the Government's constitutional arrangements. That is not the case with the European Convention. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could specify the fundamental constitutional changes that the Convention outlines.

Iain Duncan Smith: Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to tell us what constitutional changes are necessary for water fluoridation. He is now offering a referendum on that. The right hon. Gentleman changes his argument whenever he meets the question. He is fond of citing our position; perhaps I can remind him of some quotes from a book, which he may recall, that he published. He said:
	"If there are further steps to European integration, the people should have their say at a general election or in a referendum."
	We know that the Labour manifesto at the last election did not contain a single word about a European constitution. When will the British people get their say in a referendum?
	Let me ask the Prime Minister another question. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not want to hear it. On the back of the book, he made a pledge to the British people. He does not want to hear it, but I shall read it to him. It stated:
	"When we make a promise, we must be sure we can keep it."
	[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] There is more:
	"That is page one, line one of a new contract between Government and citizen."
	Is not the reality that the Prime Minister has broken his contract with the British people? Surely that is the reason why nobody believes a word he says any more.

Tony Blair: What we have promised is a referendum on the single currency, should we recommend it to the British people. We will keep that promise. We have never promised a referendum on the European Convention, for the simple reason that, as I said earlier, it does not involve a fundamental change to the British constitution. Indeed, we are in a bizarre position: everywhere in the rest of Europe, people regard the outcome of the Convention as good for Britain, yet according to Conservative Members, it is such a dire outcome for Britain that they want to reduce our membership to associate membership. We know why the right hon. Gentleman wants a referendum on the Convention: to vote no and get Britain out of Europe. That has been his game all along.

Roger Casale: I know that the Prime Minister will welcome the setting up last month of the London-wide race hate crime forum, a partnership that is led by the Metropolitan Police Authority and involves many statutory and voluntary groups in London, including Victim Support and the Crown Prosecution Service. Ten years on from the murder of Stephen Lawrence in London, will my right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary redouble their commitment to more front-line resources in the fight against race hate crime? The Ethnic Minority Centre's racial harmony project and the Merton partnership against crime in my constituency show that the resources are being used to good effect.

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right in what he says, especially as this year is the 10th anniversary of Stephen Lawrence's death. We have introduced nine new racially aggravated offences, which carry higher maximum penalties when there is evidence of a racist motive or racial hostility in connection with the offence. The Public Order Act 1986 outlaws incitement to racial hatred and I am pleased that the Metropolitan police have set up community safety units in every London borough. Although there is a distance to go, both the police and the Government take the issue seriously. As my hon. Friend says, by taking it seriously, we are having a direct impact on the problem.

Nicholas Soames: Why does the Prime Minister persist in dealing with the dignified part of our constitution so casually and arrogantly? Does not he understand that his proposal to remove the Lord Chancellor without extensive consultation is an affront to the Crown and Parliament?

Tony Blair: As we shall discuss in a moment, the whole purpose of the reforms is to give away the power of the Prime Minister to nominate a member of the Cabinet who has a judicial function, who appoints the judges and who is Speaker of the House of Lords. I should have thought that giving away the power to make such an appointment would be welcomed.

Richard Bacon: Well, you are wrong.

Tony Blair: I am, because I did not count on the completely reactionary nature of today's Conservative party. I should have thought that people would welcome the fact that, rather than having a Cabinet Minister appointed by the Prime Minister, the House of Lords will have its own independent Speaker. Only today's Conservative party could oppose that as dictatorial.

Joyce Quin: I warmly support the establishment of a supreme court in this country. I also warmly applaud the announcement earlier this week by the Deputy Prime Minister of the opportunity for people in the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber to vote for elected regional government. May I urge and encourage my right hon. Friend to support those campaigning for a yes vote in the regional referendums, thereby sending out the clearest possible message that devolution is not only right for Scotland and Wales but firmly in the interest of the United Kingdom as a whole?

Tony Blair: In addition to what my right hon. Friend rightly says, there is a Government office in each of the three areas that we are suggesting as suitable for regional government—indeed, the Government offices for the regions were put there by the previous Conservative Government—but they have no proper democratic accountability. The purpose of the reforms is to introduce democratic accountability.

John Butterfill: In view of the constitutional dog's breakfast that the Prime Minister has created in the relationships between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, will he now appoint a Secretary of State for England—preferably an Englishman—to answer to the House on exclusively English matters?

Tony Blair: I confess that I thought the Conservatives had now come to accept devolution in Scotland and Wales, but I assume from what the hon. Gentleman says that they have not. All that that indicates—[Interruption.] Well, that was the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's question. It only goes to show how completely out of date the Conservative party is.

Colin Challen: May I warmly congratulate the Government on a subject that will be of no conceivable interest to the Conservative party—namely our very positive response to the manifesto of the national Youth Parliament? I particularly welcome the proposal for a youth fund, which will give more resources to young people. May I suggest that the next logical step, alongside the review of the voting age by the Electoral Commission, should be a review of the corporate age of responsibility, so that well-established youth parliaments and councils could make more decisions on their own, rather than simply being consulted all the time? That would get more young people involved in the political process.

Tony Blair: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does with the Youth Parliament. I have heard what he has just said about how it operates, and I am sure that we shall give the matter careful consideration.

Syria

Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on UK relations with Syria.

Tony Blair: The UK is committed to a policy of constructive and, where necessary, critical engagement with Syria. This allows us to support reform while maintaining a robust dialogue on issues of concern.

Julian Lewis: The Prime Minister will be well aware of a statement by the Foreign Secretary on 6 May that Syria gives support to what he described as "rejectionist terrorist organisations". Bearing in mind the fact that it was possible for me to compile in less than half an hour this not-so-dodgy dossier on the long record of Syria's chemical and biological weapons programmes, does the Prime Minister believe—he ought to, because this information came straight from the internet—that we should be worried by any threat that terrorist groups might obtain chemical or biological weapons from the Syrian regime?

Tony Blair: Syria's support for terrorism is an issue that we have raised constantly. The closure of the offices of rejectionist groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad is a step in the right direction, but we have to go far further. Issues to do with weapons of mass destruction are also concerning—the hon. Gentleman is right about that—but we believe that the best way to pursue those concerns is in dialogue with the Syrian Government, and that dialogue is of a frank and critical nature. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to raise those issues with them. I have done so personally at meetings with President Bashar. I have no doubt that, if we can get a peace process going in the middle east, it will be essential that Syria, and indeed other countries, cut off all support for these terrorist groups, otherwise they will derail the whole process.

Tam Dalyell: Is it not a matter of concern that some formidable figures in Washington—Feith, Bolton, Wolfowitz, Perle and James Wolsey—have urged for some time that there be further action not only against Iraq but against Syria and Iran? Can we have a cast-iron guarantee that the British Government will do everything possible to oppose military action against Damascus or Tehran?

Tony Blair: We have never had a proposition put to us by the American Government for such military action, but what they have said—and we agree with it—is that there are real concerns to do with weapons of mass destruction and with terrorism, and it is important, by the process of dialogue that I have just described, that we get both Syria and Iran to change their position on these issues. If they do not change their position on terrorism, the middle east peace process is put at risk. If they do not change their position on weapons of mass destruction, the world becomes a less safe place. We are right to pursue this frank but critical dialogue, and we will continue to do so.

Crispin Blunt: Just over an hour ago, in Westminster Hall, the Minister for Europe made it clear that the Prime Minister had no intention of raising the issue of Chechnya with President Putin on his visit next week, and he also advanced the argument that we should judge Russia differently from other countries because of the circumstances that it faces in the conflict in Chechnya, where the Russian security forces have been largely responsible for the deaths of more than 100,000 people. Will the Prime Minister now make it clear that he will raise that issue with President Putin next week and state clearly that Britain expects Russia to abide by the same standards of behaviour as any other member of the Council of Europe?

Tony Blair: We do expect that of Russia. The Foreign Secretary said that he will raise the issue with his opposite number. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that I always raise the issue of Chechnya with President Putin, but I do so in a way that recognises the point that, as a result of terrorism emanating from extremists based in Chechnya, the Russian people have also suffered a very great deal. It is worth pointing out the fact that, when we finally won the conflict in Iraq, some of the people who were still offering resistance were extremists from Chechnya. Yes, it is important to raise the issue of human rights, but it is also important that we support Russia in its action against terrorism. It is also fair to say that, as a result of President Putin's political initiative, there is now a chance of a proper political solution in Chechnya. I hope that we can agree both on the need for human rights and on the need for a complete end to any form of terrorism emanating from Chechnya.

Ian Gibson: My right hon. Friend will be very aware of the explosion in information in the medical sciences. Indeed, Britain is in the forefront of that. We are to have a genetics White Paper next week, and there are new drugs, new treatments and new technologies, including the favourite of the Prince of Wales: the grey goo nanotechnology. Will he therefore resist the efforts of the European Union directive to prevent full clinical trials, funded by the national health service? In no way will that directive promote patients' safety, and I hope that he will join in resisting it.

Tony Blair: That is a valid point. It is important that, in interpreting the EU directive, we ensure that we carry on doing the trials that are necessary in this country. I know that my hon. Friend has fought for this for a long time. It raises some of the issues that I mentioned a few moments ago. It is important in relation to these questions that we proceed on the genuine basis of science. Science is a vital part of our industry. My hon. Friend's point about clinical trials is right, and we will certainly take it into account when we come to discuss how we will implement the EU directive.

George Osborne: The Home Secretary said with characteristic candour this morning that it was blindingly obvious that the Government reshuffle had been mishandled. Will the Prime Minister say with uncharacteristic candour who was responsible for that?

Tony Blair: As we will discuss in a moment, I stand fully behind the changes—[Interruption.]—and when we debate the statement, the most interesting thing will be to see whether the leader of the Conservative party agrees or disagrees with those changes.

Kali Mountford: For many of our constituents, general practice is the most important face of the NHS. In some areas, however, it is difficult to recruit new GPs. I appreciate the fact that investment has helped to produce more doctors than ever before—and more in training than ever before—but what more can be done to ensure that newly qualified doctors see general practice as at least as important as acute medical care?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of primary care; indeed, our health care system is based on it. What we are doing is introducing a series of measures—including money, incentives and payments—to encourage people into the health service as general practitioners, particularly in areas that are under-doctored at the moment. Additionally, we have a programme in place to introduce GPs from abroad to help boost our numbers. My hon. Friend will know that, since the Government came to power, there has been a huge increase in the number of nurses as well GPs, though we still have a lot further to go.

Changes to Government Departments

Tony Blair: On Thursday, we announced changes to the office of Lord Chancellor and changes in respect of the posts of Secretary of State for Scotland and Secretary of State for Wales.
	At present, judges are, effectively, selected by the Lord Chancellor. It is increasingly anomalous for a Minister—and an unelected one at that—to choose judges in that way. Following the Human Rights Act 1998, such a system is particularly outdated. The selection of judges should be by a transparent process, independently conducted. We propose to establish an independent judicial appointments commission to recommend candidates for appointment as judges on an open basis—something long advocated by many inside and outside the legal profession. There is already such an independent commission in place for selecting judges in Scotland and one forms part of the agreed settlement in Northern Ireland. The Lord Chancellor will also cease to sit as a judge, and the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords will become a fully independent supreme court.
	As we said on Thursday, all those proposals will be subject to extensive consultation processes, with consultation papers issued prior to the summer recess. Both require legislation to pass through both Houses, so there will be ample time to debate them.
	There is one further change. Again, virtually uniquely of any major democracy, the Speaker of the Upper Chamber is a member of the Cabinet appointed by the Prime Minister, but we are now inviting the House of Lords to choose its own Speaker by a process that the House itself should determine. That will enable the speakership to be independent of the Executive, as is the Speaker in the House of Commons.
	This will have a further consequence. At present, the Lord Chancellor spends many hours in every working week fulfilling his official and ceremonial duties as Speaker. However, following changes introduced by the Courts Act 1971, he is also the head of an extremely important Department of Government. He is in charge of our courts system, both criminal and civil. He manages a large part of the tribunal system, including asylum and immigration appeals, and he is also in charge of a legal aid budget of £1.9 billion.
	We need to see major changes in our courts. The judiciary has made heroic efforts to run the courts more effectively in recent years. The former Lord Chancellor also made important and lasting improvements to each part of the system, but the continuing task of reform is immense. Thousands of trials each year collapse because defendants or witnesses do not appear, and far too much police time is wasted waiting in court for cases that cannot be heard. We still do not have a proper information technology system that links courts, prisons, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. We need hugely improved co-ordination between all parts of the system. There are real problems with the way victims and witnesses are treated: in too many parts of the country, they are still put in the same waiting areas as the accused.
	The Department is a major public service department with nearly 12,000 civil servants. Yet, because of his duties in the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor—and his predecessors—did not, until last Friday, even have his private office and permanent secretary in the Department, but rather in the Palace of Westminster.
	For all those reasons, it is surely better that the Minister responsible for that Department concentrate on running the Department rather than on being Speaker of the House of Lords, sitting as a judge and selecting the judges. The size of his task will expand with the creation of a unified courts administration and a unified tribunal service. He will continue to ensure the independence of the judiciary and will also work to ensure that the court system provides an increasingly efficient service to the public.
	As for the posts of Secretary of State for Scotland and Wales, following devolution, there is no longer a requirement for there to be Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales who hold only that office: their roles can be combined with other posts. The civil servants in the Scotland Office and the Wales Office will be part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, so as to ensure that they do not move should the Cabinet Ministers change. The new Department has responsibility for the devolution settlement and the new Secretary of State, like the Lord Chancellor before him, will remain chairing the main Cabinet Constitutional Reform Committee. Oral and written questions will continue, as now, to be answered by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales.
	The reforms that I have outlined are essential acts of constitutional modernisation. They follow on the success of devolution to Scotland and Wales, the Human Rights Act 1998, freedom of information, and the removal of 90 per cent of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords. All those changes are now seen—at least on this side of the House—as welcome and permanent changes to our system of government. I am confident that the changes I have set out today will in time be regarded in the same light. I do not believe that any party in this House will reverse any of those changes, and I commend them to the House.

Iain Duncan Smith: It is customary on these occasions for the Leader of the Opposition to thank the Prime Minister for making his statement, but the person who deserves all our thanks today is Mr. Speaker, who forced the Prime Minister to come to the House to account for the most botched, bungled and damaged reshuffle in modern times. Today is a humiliation for the Prime Minister. Today he stood up and attempted to justify the decisions that he made last Thursday by saying that it is all just a consultation process.
	The reality is that the Prime Minister has already made up his mind. The fact is that not one word of what he has just said was available on Thursday when he made his decisions. He could have used this reshuffle to sort out the public services. We all know what is needed, and so does he, but the reality is that he did none of that. Instead, he used his reshuffle to charge headlong into change for change's sake, to launch a series of rushed measures that he has now accepted he has not thought through, and which were determined by infighting and refusal by members of his Cabinet—[Interruption.]
	The Prime Minister has abolished by decree the office of state referred to specifically in statute 500 times and which has vast powers over the daily lives of every single person in the entire system of justice—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. The House will listen to the Leader of the Opposition with the same respectful silence as it listened to the Prime Minister. We have to maintain a calm attitude, not only for the better prosecution of business, but so that those who watch our affairs will be suitably impressed.

Iain Duncan Smith: The truth is that the Government are running scared. Every one of their lackeys has been briefed to act as an air-raid shelter for the Prime Minister. Last week, the Prime Minister ripped up the constitution in a matter of hours, without consultation. He made monumental changes on the back of a Cabinet reshuffle, as though our constitution were the Prime Minister's personal plaything and as though only he had the right to make the final decision. He wants people to believe that this is a fuss about nothing and that somehow everybody else is scared of change, but we are not. [Hon. Members: "Yes, you are."] Oh, no.
	Every political party accepts that the British constitution is constantly evolving, not only under Labour but under other parties. That is its great strength—the evolution of the constitution. The point is not whether the constitution should change, but how it should change. Our constitution should be changed only after thought, consideration and proper debate, both inside and outside Government. The constitution is not owned by one political party or even by the Prime Minister. It cannot be changed by whim.
	Those are not just our words. Lord Donaldson, the former Master of the Rolls, was asked whether there had been consultation. He said:
	"As far as I know, there's been absolutely none. I think that it is totally topsy-turvy, Alice in Wonderland stuff."
	Indeed, as Lewis Carroll wrote, "Sentence first—verdict afterwards." That is just what the Prime Minister has given us.
	I have a question for the Prime Minister. What will he do if the changes that he has put forward today are rejected in the course of the consultations? He has made his mind up already. Is he going to withdraw the changes? Is he going to admit that he is wrong? Is he going to say that he is sorry? I doubt it.
	Even today, almost a week after his reshuffle took place, there remain very serious questions for the Prime Minister. On Thursday, his Downing street website said:
	"The Prime Minister's Official Spokesman said that in the transition period Lord Falconer would not fulfil either the judicial function of Lord Chancellor or the role of speaker."
	So can the Prime Minister explain why Lord Falconer on Friday was hauled to the Woolsack to admit that he was both Lord Chancellor and Speaker of the House of Lords?
	On Thursday, we were told that the Lord Chancellor's job had been abolished. On Friday, we were told that Lord Falconer was Lord Chancellor after all. Yesterday night, the list of Ministers was finally issued, five days after the reshuffle. This is what it said about Lord Falconer's post:
	"Lord Chancellor (for the transitional period)".
	That is the Lord Chancellor's new position.
	Will the Prime Minister tell us how long the transitional period will last? What time scale is involved? Lord Falconer said that the transition would take three years. The part-time Leader of the House said on Tuesday that it would take 18 months. How long will it take?
	Will the Prime Minister also explain how the independence of the judiciary is guaranteed by an appointments commission that will be appointed by him? How will that happen? What role will the Home Secretary play in appointing the members of the commission?
	If the Prime Minister is so serious and sorted-out about this matter, perhaps he can say how he will separate himself from his own power to recommend to Her Majesty the Queen who should fill the Law Lords' positions. Will the right hon. Gentleman, as part of the changes, now get rid of that power that he holds—yes or no?
	I turn now to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Will the Prime Minister explain why the Scotland Office said last Friday morning that it had been abolished and was now part of the DCA, while the Wales Office stated that it had not been abolished and remained independent? I quote from the Wales Office statement:
	"Across the road at the Scotland Office, they are rudderless and there is confusion on their part. They are taking down their old signs but we are not."
	Later that day, the Scotland Office suddenly decided that it existed after all, and changed its statement. It stated:
	"Alistair Darling has confirmed the Scotland Office still exists but has been merged into a bigger department. I don't have any more details, we are still trying to get to grips with all of this."
	I tried to get to the bottom of the—[Interruption.] Labour Members can shout as much as they like, but they will not escape the fact that this reorganisation is botched, bungled and totally wrong.
	Today, I went to the Downing Street website—[Hon. Members: "Ooh!"] I went to the website to find out just what the Prime Minister thought about whether there was a Welsh Office or a Scottish Office. This is what it said:
	"We are sorry."
	That is not a bad start.
	"The page you are looking for cannot be found. It might have been removed, had its name changed, or may be temporarily unavailable."
	In fact, today the Prime Minister has contradicted what his right hon. Friend the part-time Secretary of State for Wales said yesterday. What the Prime Minister has said is completely different:
	"The civil servants in the Scotland Office and the Wales Office will be part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, so as to ensure they do not move should the Cabinet Members change."
	On Tuesday, the part-time Leader of the House said:
	"I have already answered that question. The Scotland Office exists. It exists as it did before Thursday, as it does now, and as it will in the future, as does the Wales Office."—[Official Report, 17 June 2003; Vol. 110, c. 237.]
	That is yet another change in 24 hours—more chaos, and more confusion.
	Will the Prime Minister tell the House whom the civil servants will report to? Will the two part-time Secretaries of State report to Lord Falconer? What are the statutory functions of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs? Where is his budget coming from, and under what authority? [Interruption.]
	Labour Members do not want to listen to any of those questions. They simply do as they are told by their master's voice—any decree, any time, any place will do for them. But there are serious questions. [Interruption.] Who, ultimately, will take decisions—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House really must behave itself.

Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree with the former, full-time, Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who said when he was shadow Health Secretary that once health had been devolved to the Scottish Parliament,
	"it is not possible for me to continue as Minister of Health, administering health in England."
	Does the Prime Minister agree that it is bizarre that the new Health Secretary for England will push through policies that have been rejected by the Labour Administration in Scotland and which will not affect his own constituents? Is the Prime Minister really telling us that not one English Member among all the lackeys behind him is capable of running the Department of Health?
	The Prime Minister did not bother to tell his own Cabinet—[Interruption.] Well, let me ask him this: when did he discuss the changes with his Cabinet? On what day did he do that, and with whom? [Interruption.] When did he discuss them? Most of his Cabinet do not have a clue what he said. His own Home Secretary said that he thought that the comings and goings on Thursday and Friday could have been communicated more effectively.
	What I say to the Prime Minister is this—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are important matters that should be heard with equal fairness on both sides of the House.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Labour party does not care about the constitution. All it cares about is gerrymandering the constitution so that it can have its people in the right place at the right time. That is the charge. The Prime Minister is guilty of fiddling with the system without consultation. He has sacked his boss, promoted his flatmate and fiddled throughout.
	The one clear message coming from the Government from last week's botched reshuffle is that neither this House nor the British people can have any faith in the Government. We cannot believe a word the Prime Minister says any more.

Hon. Members: More!

Tony Blair: Let us first deal with consultation. We said on Thursday that there would be consultation papers by the end of the summer on the independent judicial appointments commission and the fact that the Lord Chancellor would no longer sit as a judge in the House of Lords. Of course, both changes would have to be subject to Acts of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman asks how long the transition will take—it will take as long as the Acts of Parliament. Of course, we will have a full debate in both Houses of Parliament about it, so the idea that there is no consultation or chance for debate is plainly absurd.
	As for the speakership of the House of Lords, again, as we said on Thursday, that will be subject to their Lordships' wishes—it is up to them. I would have thought that they would welcome the chance to have an independent Speaker in the House of Lords, nominated by them. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asks why we do not ask them. We are asking them. That is exactly what we are doing. That is why, until they agree, we cannot change the position, but we want them to agree because it makes sense for the modern world.
	Let us suppose that the Speaker in the House of Lords was elected by that House at present and I said, "I'm going to change that. I'm going to have a Cabinet Minister doing that job." Imagine the outcry that there would be then. All we are proposing is that the other House have charge of selecting its own Speaker as we do here. How that is a move to dictatorship baffles me.
	The one thing that I never heard from the right hon. Gentleman was his position on the changes. He says that I am perpetrating this terrible constitutional outrage. Does he agree that there should be an independent judicial appointments commission? [Hon. Members: "Answer!"] Let's have some quiet. He said that there has been no consultation. I am consulting—I am asking him now. Does he agree with an independent judicial appointments commission? He cannot tell us—[Interruption].

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he has made a statement and the questions are put to the Prime Minister. I think that we will make more progress if we maintain that traditional balance.

Tony Blair: We do not know either whether the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) agrees to the Lord Chancellor being a member of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. What is the Conservatives' position? We do not know, but we do know their position on the Secretary of State for Scotland—in their last manifesto, they advocated getting rid of that as a separate office.
	As for the right hon. Gentleman's statement about how much he wants all Scottish affairs to be dealt with by Scotland and all English affairs to be dealt with by English Ministers, who is his shadow Secretary of State for Scotland? The hon. Lady in question sits for a constituency in the London borough of Bromley. Here we are with this great constitutional outrage and the Conservatives cannot even tell us whether they are in favour of the changes or against them. They are outraged "don't knows". It is no good the right hon. Gentleman pointing his finger. He should give us his position.
	The fact is that these are sensible, modernising changes, which have been sought for many years. They involve the Prime Minister giving away power rather than keeping it. They are of a piece with the changes that we have already made. Of course, when we proposed devolution, the Conservatives said that it would lead to the break up of the United Kingdom—now, they support it. When we proposed the Human Rights Act, they told us that it was a constitutional disgrace—now, they support it. When we told them that we wanted hereditary peers out of the House of Lords, they said that it was terrible—and they still think it terrible. Now, the right hon. Gentleman wants to fight to the death to keep the Minister in charge of our court system in a full-bottomed wig, 18th century breeches, and women's tights, sitting on a woolsack rather than running the Court Service. That says a lot more about the Conservative party than about the Labour party. If that is the centrepiece of the right hon. Gentleman's electoral strategy, roll on the election.

Hon. Members: More, more!

Charles Kennedy: My colleagues and certainly those on the Labour Benches will be relieved to know that I simply want to put some brief questions to the Prime Minister. Of course, that is a reflection of my own inadequacies as I have not benefited from the tremendous mechanism known as the No. 10 website.
	The Prime Minister is well aware, as is the House, that the Liberal Democrats have long been urging further constitutional reforms upon the Government. Our two parties co-operated in opposition and we saw the fruits of that when Labour came to power, and we would like the progress on constitutional reform to continue. Therefore credit is due for the package that has been announced. As Ministers have indicated, however, that has been somewhat overshadowed by the confusions and fracas that accompanied it. Listening to the Prime Minister make his statement I thought that the more its content was analysed, the greater the case became for having had a proper White Paper with an accompanying consultation process.
	First, the move towards the creation of a supreme court is both overdue and very welcome. The Liberal Democrats' only regret is that it does not go far enough. We would prefer the establishment of a department of justice, bringing criminal and civil justice together under one head. Will the Prime Minister say whether he has ruled that out in his own mind or whether it could be a legitimate part of the consultation process, even if it means renewed debate with the Home Secretary and the Home Office as a whole?
	The Government have a practical difficulty in that there are no fewer than 500 different references in statute to the existing role of the Lord Chancellor. The Prime Minister says that we can make good progress. In abolishing the role of Lord Chancellor, how long does he envisage that it will take to delete or amend those references accordingly? There are a lot of them.
	Of course we welcome the independence of judicial appointment for judges, but will the Prime Minister also acknowledge that the present system tends to favour unduly barristers who appear regularly in the higher courts, thereby discriminating against solicitors, women and those from ethnic minorities? Does he agree that that is a pertinent question that should be considered in the consultation process?
	On the changes to the Wales Office and the Scotland Office, would it not make more sense to create a department of nations and the regions? In the context of the statement made this week by the Deputy Prime Minister—we certainly welcome the moves towards consultative referendums and the hope of more regionalism within England—could not all those be brought together in one huge territorial department in the longer term?
	On the proposal that there should be a department for constitutional reform, is it not something of an anomaly that that would be presided over by a Cabinet Minister who is not answerable to the elected House of Commons? We want to consider the anomalies associated with the role of Lord Chancellor, but we must also be conscious of the anomalies that the proposals would create.
	Finally, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that there is one yawning gap in the plans outlined for further constitutional reform? It is the predominantly unelected nature of the upper House. Now that he has appointed a new leader of that House who is himself in favour of a democratically elected second Chamber, will he give his backing to that further move in that direction? Can the consultation process involve a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament, and obviously all Opposition parties? If we had had a greater and more sensible level of consultation, could we not have avoided some of the difficulties of the past few days? Is not that one of the important lessons to learn from this recent episode?

Tony Blair: First, I take it from that that the Liberal Democrats are basically in favour of the proposals. I therefore find it odd that so many of them voted with the Conservatives against the proposals last night. Anyway, perhaps that should not really be a matter of surprise.
	In respect of the point about the supreme court, that will be part of the consultation process. We announced last Thursday that two consultation papers on each of these major issues will be put to people before the summer recess. The proposals will have to be introduced, of course, through an Act of Parliament, which must go through this House with debate and through the upper House with debate. Therefore, the idea that there will be no debate or consultation is patently absurd, because of the process that we need to go through.
	As for a ministry of justice, I am not in favour of that. Let me explain to the right hon Gentleman why that has never been proposed by the Government or me. It is important that we keep the criminal law and criminal justice system with the Home Secretary in respect of police fighting crime and other issues. What we have been trying to do over the past few years is to move out of the Home Office some of the constitutional functions so that it can concentrate, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is doing so well, on law and order, fighting crime, antisocial behaviour and asylum and immigration issues. That is why the Lord Chancellor's Department is obviously going to deal with many of the constitutional issues that the Home Office has been dealing with up to now.
	In relation to solicitors and ethnic minorities, the right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. That is one of the reasons why people have thought that it is better to have a more transparent and open system.
	I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned this because I was going to point this out if he did not. He has put forward the Liberal Democrat proposal in relation to the Secretary of State for Scotland and Wales, which effectively means getting rid of those posts and having one Secretary of State for the nations and regions. Of course, that is one possible avenue. The reason I do not think it is the right one, however, is that it would be very odd then in circumstances where, let us say, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was Secretary of State for the nations and regions, to go up to Scotland as Secretary of State for Scotland, effectively speaking for Scotland—[Interruption.] There is a debate about those issues, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman can see that there would be anomalies in the position that he puts forward, too.
	In relation to the issue of an elected upper House, I have already said that that should be a matter in which Members of Parliament should have a free vote. There will be different views: different views exist in the Cabinet, and, I am sure, in the shadow Cabinet. There are different views in the right hon. Gentleman's party, too. The most important thing, however, is that we have a debate as Members of Parliament and that we decide. My preoccupation on this issue has always been that we must not end up replicating the House of Commons in the House of Lords. That would be a mistake, and it would not help our constitution.

Helen Liddell: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that, with the constitutional changes put in place last week, the unfinished business of John Smith and Donald Dewar is now finished? There is now a stable constitutional arrangement for Scotland, strengthened within the United Kingdom with robust arrangements that ensure that, regardless of the political upheavals, that relationship will remain strong. In addition, with declining electoral support for the Scottish National party in Scotland, the job of nat-basher-in-chief is no longer needed, as the nationalists do it very well themselves.

Tony Blair: I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments. I also thank her for the part that she played in making the devolution settlement successful. It is worth pointing out that, when we first advocated devolution, we were attacked by the nationalists, who wanted separation and who wanted to rip Scotland out of the United Kingdom and still do, and we were attacked by the Conservatives, who told us that it would lead to the break-up of the UK. What has happened is that the devolution settlement has worked, and support for nationalism is at an all-time low.

Patrick Cormack: Cannot the Prime Minister pause for a moment, reflect and realise that many of those who have admired his leadership over Iraq, in all parts of the House, in both Houses and outside—and who have given him unstinting support for which he has been grateful—think that on this matter he has behaved with cavalier disdain? He has treated both Houses of Parliament with contempt and has announced changes and then said that consultation will follow. Cannot he just admit for once that he has got it wrong?

Tony Blair: First, whatever I say to the hon. Gentleman, I say it with respect for him, not merely for the support that he has given me over Iraq but for the work that he has done in the House for a very long time. Of course, when the Government believe that certain changes are necessary, we make the announcement saying that these are changes that we wish to make. Issues are bound to be raised, however, and I ask him to bear it in mind, as we said last Thursday, that there will be two consultation papers: one on the independent judicial appointments commission and the other on the role of the Lord Chancellor in relation to the courts. In relation to the speakership of the House of Lords, we have made it clear that we can only make those changes if the House of Lords agrees. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that there will be the opportunity for detailed consultation and debate, as there should be.

Andrew MacKinlay: In relation to the Lord Chancellor, it was a good proposal but with poor presentation. May I consult my right hon. Friend on one idea that might flow from it? Would he consider—I hope that he will have an open mind on this—a reform whereby Ministers of either House could appear in either House, rather than Members of both Houses having to rely on parrots replicating Ministers' utterances at questions? It seems to me that the architects of legislation should pilot that legislation in both Houses. For example, Baroness Amos should be subject to scrutiny and able to answer in this place. Allowing Ministers to appear in both Houses would be a very good reform that I would hope he would support.

Tony Blair: I apologise for not having been radical enough in the reforms that we have put forward. I am afraid that I can see some difficulties with what my hon. Friend suggests, but I have no doubt that he will have an opportunity to discuss it with other Members and build up support for it.

Roger Gale: Earlier this afternoon, the Prime Minister told the House that these proposals will be subject to extensive consultation. Like so much that the Prime Minister has said recently, that is patently untrue. In the first line of his statement, he says, "We announced the changes". He knows that he has announced the changes and that the consultation is meaningless. The Prime Minister has delusions of grandeur, but he is not the Head of State. There is a Head of State. When did he consult her and inform her that he was going to abolish 1,400 years of constitutional history?

Tony Blair: Consultations have taken place in the normal way. In respect of the point made by the hon. Gentleman at the beginning, it is obvious that if the changes that I have announced must proceed through an Act of Parliament, both Houses of Parliament, of course, must agree to that. I do not know how else we announce the Government's position but by announcing it. That is what we believe. What I still do not quite understand about the extraordinary outrage of Opposition Members is whether they agree with the propositions or not. Surely their outrage must in some shape or form be determined by whether they think the proposals are right or wrong.
	In respect of the point about 1,400 years of history, it is correct that the post has existed, in different ways, for 1,400 years, but it is also correct that, occasionally, we should evolve and change our constitution. The question is therefore whether the change is sensible or not. Before the change comes through, the House will be able to make its decision known, and the other place will be able to make its decision known, exactly in accordance with our constitution.

Win Griffiths: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware that some time ago the Welsh Assembly Government established the Richard commission to look at the workings of devolution from the point of view of the Welsh Assembly. In the light of his announcements on Thursday and developments over the weekend, will he set up an ad hoc committee of this Parliament to look at the devolution process from the perspective of this Parliament?

Tony Blair: I understand entirely my hon. Friend's point. Of course, we will await with interest the outcome of the Richard commission. I must say, however, that it is probably better to discuss this matter in the usual way in government.

Andrew MacKay: What possible reason could there have been for rushing the reshuffle through last Thursday, when clearly it had not been properly thought out in detail and has caused the Government great embarrassment? Was the Downing street spokesman correct when he said that it had to be last Thursday because of Lord Irvine? Why could not Lord Irvine have stayed in place a little longer?

Tony Blair: First, let me specify again the changes that we are proposing. They are changes to do with an independent judicial appointments commission, the fact that the Lord Chancellor should no longer sit as a judge and that the speakership of the House of Lords should be held by an independent person, nominated by the House of Lords. I do not think that there is any great confusion about those proposals; they are perfectly simple and straightforward. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with them or not? I do not suppose that we shall be told. On consultation, as I have pointed out, the latter proposal can be carried out only with the agreement of the House of Lords and the first two require an Act of Parliament, therefore it is a little odd to say that I am rushing them through without consultation when actually both Houses of Parliament will have to agree them.

Tony Wright: I welcome the proposals, in particular that for a supreme court, which was recommended in a recent report from the Public Administration Committee. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposals mean that the Government now have their second wind in respect of constitutional reform, so that on issues such as Lords reform and civil service legislation, we shall see the same decisive radicalism?

Tony Blair: We should judge that on a case-by-case basis.

Elfyn Llwyd: Bearing in mind the nature of the devolution settlement in Wales, does the Prime Minister realise how important a strong Wales Office is to the passage of Welsh legislation? After all, this place is the only Chamber that can legislate for Wales. Does he realise that it is extremely offensive to Wales to sweep away the Wales Office as he has done, and that his four sentences today have compounded that offence?

Tony Blair: The Secretary of State for Wales will occupy his office and carry out his post with another job—

Elfyn Llwyd: Part-time.

Tony Blair: Is the hon. Gentleman a Welsh nationalist?

Elfyn Llwyd: Yes.

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman is in favour of getting rid of the job altogether. He cannot come to this place and tell me that the job is not full-time enough. If the Welsh nationalists had their way, Wales would not even be part of the United Kingdom.

Harry Barnes: Apart from the important and mistaken decision to put the new Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs in the wrong place, I am entirely supportive of the measures that the Prime Minister has proposed, and I do not normally say that. However, has not my right hon. Friend put the cart before the horse? Should not we have debated the possibilities first, so that the error in the appointment of the new Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs could have been avoided?

Tony Blair: First, I thank my hon. Friend for his support for our proposals, which is all the more gratifying for its rarity.
	Secondly, as I have pointed out, there may have been a misconception. The independent judicial appointments commission and the question of whether the Lord Chancellor sits as an appellate judge in the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords have to be dealt with by legislation. There will be ample time to debate those things in the House of Lords and, obviously, in the House of Commons, too. That is why the notion that what happened on Thursday was somehow all suddenly implemented by Monday is not right.

John Redwood: Can the Prime Minister tell us the costs of the changes that are already going through and of the changes that he would like to put through? Could it be that this is rather an expensive way of getting rid of an old man in tights? Might it have been cheaper to buy him a pair of trousers?

Tony Blair: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman exact details of the costs, but I hope that he will agree that making sure that the Lord Chancellor is actually concentrating on the core business of running the courts system is actually a far more efficient use of his time.

David Winnick: I welcome the changes, which are long overdue, but can my right hon. Friend explain why the appointments that he made last week include people with titles such as Vice-Chamberlain and Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard of the Yeoman of the Guard? What on earth does the Master of the Horse do? Clean the horse? Is not it time that, in a mature democracy such as ours, we got rid of such Ruritanian titles and jobs, the wigs, the gowns and the swords, including in the House of Commons?

Tony Blair: I think that we have been radical enough for the moment.

Alan Beith: Does the Prime Minister realise that these important and necessary reforms will get off to a pretty bad start if it remains unclear whether he is talking about a supreme court in the American sense of a constitutional court, or merely removing the Law Lords to sit in another building? There are certainly genuine anxieties at present about just how independent the judicial appointments commission will be and they could remain, especially when we have a Home Secretary who says:
	"I just like judges who help . . . us to do the job."

Tony Blair: I think that is unfair on the Home Secretary, who has said that he fully supports the independence of the judiciary.
	With the greatest respect, people cannot have things both ways. There are issues to be resolved about the precise nature of the supreme court. That is why we said that a consultation paper would be issued before the recess. It is also why debates will be held in both Houses. All the issues can be resolved then.

Graham Allen: On the point about rushing to judgment in this matter, does my right hon. Friend agree that, 10 years ago, as shadow Home Secretary, he won the Labour party conference over to a judicial appointments commission, a ministry of justice, judicial independence and a Select Committee on legal affairs? It is rather like saying that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was rushing into regional government when he made his announcement earlier this week when, in fact, he started campaigning on the issue more than 20 years ago.
	In the week when those policies have finally come to fruition, I urge my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to stay with the big picture and leave the pygmies opposite to suck up the media trivia. He should re-read the speech that he made 10 years ago, when he stated that
	"Labour would abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a"—
	democratic second Chamber—
	"with a new electoral system".
	My right hon. Friend is at his best when he is at his boldest.

Tony Blair: It is always worrying when previous speeches are quoted back. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that many of the changes that we are advocating have been advocated for a long time by many people inside and outside this place. I come back to the main point. The whole basis of the changes that we are making—rather like the devolution changes—is not that we retain power, but that we give it away. I am going to be giving away the ability to nominate the Lord Chancellor, who sits in the Cabinet, is the Speaker of the House of Lords and appoints the judges. I find that proposition odd in today's world, when, surely, there should be clear separation between Executive, legislature and judiciary.

Edward Garnier: In the light of the nature, tone and content of the Prime Minister's statement, is it right that the principle of the supreme court and the judicial appointments commission is a given and that the consultation exercise will simply be about the mechanics of the principles that he has announced?

Tony Blair: We have set out what we want to do as a Government. That is how Governments announce their policy. They say, "That is what we want to do." There is then a consultation process, which we shall initiate with the consultation papers. After that, there will be a debate in both Houses—I emphasise "both". Of course there will be debate.
	We have set out our view that there should be an independent judicial appointments commission, but it will be for this House and the other House to debate the details of that. For the life of me, I cannot see why that is a wrong process.

George Foulkes: Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that he would not contemplate appointing Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales from English constituencies such as Beckenham and Ribble Valley?

Tony Blair: We have no need to do so.

Peter Duncan: The people of Scotland know that this botched reshuffle has done nothing to address the problems of the Scottish economy or our air transport problems. In concluding the consultation on air transport, does the Prime Minister expect his part-time Secretary of State for Transport to advocate more use of the London hub airports, or his part-time Secretary of State for Scotland to advocate more direct flights to Scotland? What will happen if they disagree?

Tony Blair: I thought that the hon. Gentleman did pretty well. He should be shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, but he is not because someone sitting for Bromley has that post.
	On the part-time point, I remind the hon. Gentleman that he was elected on a manifesto that stated:
	"We will keep the position of Secretary of State for Scotland with the holder of that position also having an additional UK role within the Cabinet."
	I have just implemented the policy on which he was elected.

Chris Bryant: The British constitution has many pantomime elements, but is the Prime Minister surprised by the pantomime antics of the Tory party? Yesterday, we had Widow Twanky and today we had Buttons, who could not recognise a decent constitutional change if it was lying in his bed when he came home at the end of the day. Is not the truth that, when we were redrafting the German constitution in the 1940s, this country insisted on precisely the changes that we are about to see, and that what was good for Germany in the 1940s is good for Britain now?

Tony Blair: I do not think that we will take that too far. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend has got Conservative Members on a sensitive point. Of course, the point that he makes in relation to the constitutional changes is right, and I would simply point out that the Conservatives opposed the constitutional changes in respect of devolution, that they opposed the minimum wage and that they have opposed virtually every constitutional change. We still have not heard—perhaps someone will ask them at some point in the next few days—whether, if these changes are so terrible, they are pledged to reverse them. We should be told.

David Burnside: Will the Prime Minister inform the House what advice he received from his Cabinet Secretary before he announced these constitutional changes? When the Prime Minister is formulating his strategic planning for constitutional change, which role model does he prefer: the constitution of the first French Republic after the revolution, or our constitution after the Glorious Revolution of 1688?

Tony Blair: It is a bit much, when I am giving away the power to anoint—appoint, I should say. [Laughter.] It is a bit much, when I am giving away the power to appoint the Speaker of the House of Lords, to say that it is the equivalent of the French revolution. That is a somewhat extreme statement, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, like other hon. Members, would have welcomed the fact that I will have given up power if these changes go through, which is why I hope that he and others will support them.

Vera Baird: Can my right hon. Friend convince the Leader of the Opposition that women cannot have great faith in a judiciary that is 95 per cent. male and that ethnic minorities cannot have great faith in a judiciary that is almost 100 per cent. white and excludes anyone like them? Are not the Tories simply being reactionary? They want judges to carry on being picked, by secret soundings and tittle-tattle in Pall Mall clubs, from among white men from the upper middle classes—a group only a little less representative than they are.

Tony Blair: To be fair to my right hon. Friend the former Lord Chancellor, he made many changes in this area, but the point that my hon. and learned Friend makes is right, and it is one of the reasons why things should be transparent and open. Frankly, I believe that that is the way that virtually every other western democracy makes its judicial appointments, so that it is done in an open way. I commend to the Opposition the speech recently made by Chris Patten. [Interruption.] He is a bit of a no-no for them now. He used to be chairman of the Conservative party in the days when it was roughly sane. He said that it is very important to realise that, in this day and age, it is not acceptable for judges to be appointed by a process that, as he put it, was a bit akin to the old magic circle that used to appoint leaders of the Conservative party. It is worth reflecting on that. Surely, in this day and age, it is better to appoint judges by an open and transparent process. How that is dictatorial, I do not know.

Peter Ainsworth: Was it Lord Falconer's performance as a flatmate or as Minister in charge of the dome that particularly recommended him for promotion?

Tony Blair: If the hon. Gentleman reflects on the job that my right hon. Friend did, not merely in respect of housing and planning, but on criminal justice and the police, he will see that he did an absolutely superb job.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now move on.

Domestic Violence

David Blunkett: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on domestic violence.
	Today, I am publishing a consultation paper outlining proposals to help to prevent and tackle the consequences of domestic violence. I pay tribute to many right hon. and hon. Members, including the Attorney-General; the Solicitor-General, who is here this afternoon; my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham); my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche); the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton); my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), and other members of the interministerial and all-party groups. I do so because I do not believe that there is any difference between political parties on this issue.
	Domestic violence accounts for a quarter of all recorded violent crime. One in four women experience some form of violence from their husband or partner during their lifetime. Every week, two women die as a result of such violence. All violent crime can destroy lives, but domestic violence is usually a hidden crime. All too often victims suffer silently, afraid for themselves and for their children. The trauma and long-term effects suffered by children is incalculable. Domestic violence can occur irrespective of background or circumstance, but it is predominantly women who suffer.
	Our consultation paper builds on the proposals that we made in last year's White Paper on criminal justice. Preventing domestic violence in the first place is at the heart of our proposals. Research shows that one in five young men and one in 10 young women believe that violence towards a partner is sometimes acceptable. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that that is never the case. If we are to prevent such violence, we must ensure that all young people understand that basic truth. It is necessary to increase understanding of the nature of domestic violence to ensure the correct response from professionals, including teachers, doctors and those in the social services, the courts and the police service.
	Alcohol and drug misuse are major factors in domestic violence. We already have in place a strategy to tackle drug misuse. Later this year, the Government will publish a national harm reduction strategy, focusing on alcohol. I believe that all hon. Members agree that the home should be a place of safety. Sadly, for those affected it is a place of fear. Therefore, the second strand of our strategy is about protection for victims. The response of the police to domestic violence is crucial. Victims need reassurance that early intervention will be forthcoming. That is why we propose to make common law assault an arrestable offence, so that, at the time of the attack, suspected perpetrators can be instantly removed from the scene.
	I also welcome the work being undertaken by the inspectorates that are carrying out a major review into how the Crown Prosecution Service and the police handle domestic violence cases. Victims are often deterred from reporting violence and appearing as witnesses because of the handling of domestic violence cases. They are afraid of reprisals and what many see as the shame that such violence brings. That is why we are proposing to allow victims and witnesses to apply for anonymity. We would welcome views on that issue.
	A number of specialist courts have been developed, demonstrating greater expertise and support for victims. In Leeds and Cardiff, domestic violence courts have increased co-ordination between agencies and the civil and criminal jurisdictions. We would welcome views on how further to develop such specialist facilities.
	I think that we all agree that the civil and criminal law must be improved better to protect victims. We are therefore proposing some important changes. We wish breaching non-molestation orders and occupation orders to become a criminal offence, giving the police new powers to arrest in all cases where they believe that that is warranted. We intend to widen the availability of restraining orders under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. They should be available when there is insufficient evidence for a criminal conviction but sufficient justification for safeguards to be put in place. When appropriate, we will allow orders to be imposed at the time of charge, pending trial. The courts should have powers to impose restraining orders for any violent offence, not just the limited range under current law.
	At present, the police have no way of telling whether a person has a civil order against them. That is why I am seeking views on whether to create a register of civil orders. Such a register would mean that the police would know at the time of being called to a domestic violence incident whether the suspect had breached an order and could thus be automatically arrested. In addition, I am reflecting on the suggestion of creating a broader register of domestic violence offenders. However, there are complicated issues that we need to think about and our minds are not closed on the issue. I should make it clear that access to any such register would be strictly limited. There would be a danger that wider access could deter victims or their families from coming forward.
	We must ensure that sentences reflect the crimes committed. The sentencing advisory panel will consider domestic violence homicides and, additionally, the Attorney-General will issue new guidance to the Crown Prosecution Service on domestic murders. I am also referring to the Law Commission the defences offered in homicide cases. I shall ask it to focus particularly on how provocation, self-defence and diminished responsibility operate in domestic violence cases. The defence of provocation, for example, often relies on sexual jealousy as justification for murder. That is not acceptable.
	Contact between children and their parents should be encouraged, but the welfare of the child must be paramount. We will amend contact and residence application forms so that judges are aware of allegations of domestic violence at the beginning of proceedings.
	The third strand of our strategy is to provide practical support to victims. A total of more than £61 million is being spent on domestic violence this year, with £33 million being invested in new refuge accommodation over the next three years. The first 24-hour national helpline for victims of domestic violence will be established and it will be supported by a database of safe accommodation and local services.
	It is vital that we also find ways of helping victims of domestic violence to stay in their own homes. We would welcome views on how best to achieve that, including views on re-accommodating the alleged perpetrator. Victims of domestic violence whose immigration status is being decided currently have no access to public support. It is our belief that all victims, whatever their circumstances, deserve our help. We shall enable places of safety to be offered, and help to support victims of violence in such circumstances.
	The consultation paper is about improving prevention and providing support for victims. We must ensure that perpetrators understand that domestic violence will not be tolerated. The proposals that we are setting out today will be a further step toward that goal. We will seek to change attitudes and help victims to break free from the cycle of violence and abuse. No woman, man or child brings domestic violence on themselves. No one should have to put up with it; the abuse is unacceptable. I am therefore asking all sides of the House to support taking the measures forward, and I commend the measures to the House.

Caroline Spelman: First, I thank the Home Secretary for giving me prior notice of the statement.
	We welcome the Government's announcement on domestic violence. It brings a subject that has been taboo out into the open where it can be debated and better dealt with. The reason I am responding as shadow Minister for Women is not because we see this as exclusively a women's issue, for there are male victims and their plight is seriously underreported, but because we accord the highest importance to the fact that two women a week die as a result of domestic violence. I have a personal interest in the issue, having launched a poster campaign last Christmas to publicise where victims can get help.
	There is no question but that the criminal justice system fails victims of domestic violence, but the Government need to be careful not to introduce unenforceable legislation in an area in which lives need to be saved. Legislating for unrestrained human emotions is not easy. Will the Home Secretary reassure the House that consultation will be as wide as possible and that it will involve not only main agencies, survivors and their families, but ethnic minorities and men's and grandparents' groups, because domestic violence casts a long shadow over the extended family?
	At present, the courts feel like a hostile place to victims. Specialist courts represent progress toward improving the judicial response to domestic violence. Do the Government have any plans to extend these beyond the three to which the Home Secretary referred? Does he agree that the fact that over 50 per cent. of domestic violence cases receive a harsher sentence on appeal indicates that the judiciary requires more specialist training?
	Research that shows how many young people think that violence is a normal part of their relationships highlights why prevention is a key issue. Do the Government intend to incorporate teaching on anger management and non-violent communication in the school curriculum? Perpetrator programmes are notoriously unsuccessful. Does the Home Secretary accept that changing a person's behaviour needs to start much earlier in life and to be reinforced by society's view that domestic violence is not okay?
	I welcome the Government's announcement of new funds for refuges. Will the Home Secretary join me in applauding volunteers who have campaigned tirelessly to secure even the present level of one refuge per 200,000 of population? I know that figure to my cost because I have been trying for years to get a refuge in my constituency. I am appalled that there are more animal sanctuaries than refuges in this country. It is estimated that about 40,000 women are on the move in refuges every week. Such caravanning around the countryside of vulnerable women and children who are looking for somewhere to hide and sleep is barely credible in the 21st century. Does he accept that it is a fundamental injustice that the victim moves out of the family home and loses assets, status and security while the perpetrator tends to remain?
	The Government must be careful not to overlook the needs of the child when reforming legislation on domestic violence. Four out of five children who run away from home say that they do so to escape family conflict, violence or abuse. What is being done to safeguard the wishes of children who may not want contact with a violent parent or who suffer mental anguish due to the guilt of not having protected their abused parent?
	It is not only improving legislation that will make a difference; practical help is at least as important, if not more important. It is quite extraordinary that there is a view that if victims are housed in a safe place, they will get on with their lives as if nothing had happened. Does the Home Secretary agree that there needs to be much more assistance in the aftermath of such a traumatic experience?
	The subject of domestic violence is so serious that there can be no question of gesture politics. The Home Secretary refers to the first 24-hour national helpline, but the charities Women's Aid and Refuge already run a 24-hour national helpline. The Government's initiative was announced for the first time on 11 December last year, but it is still not up and running. Does the Home Secretary accept that failing to meet the raised expectations of such a vulnerable group exposes him to the serious allegation of playing politics? When does he expect the helpline to be fully operational?
	Homicide reviews are all very well, but how many will it take before we finally learn the lessons? The experience of the Victoria Climbié case shows that crimes committed behind closed doors are the most difficult to prevent and are in most need of prompt and effective intervention by agencies, which all too often allow a case to slip through the net.
	We kid ourselves that we live in a civilised society. That cannot be true when such a high number of fatalities are too often dismissed with the phrase, "It's only a domestic."

David Blunkett: I am happy to have the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) opposite me at the Dispatch Box and would be happy to repeat the experience. I assure her that no one will play politics on the issue. Whatever the gripes about the delay in setting up the helpline, we are making an offer, as the statement demonstrated, to work together in the interests of those who are dying and being abused every day—one woman is abused every minute in this country. I make that offer again because the subject transcends party politics and shows Parliament at its non-political best.
	We need to be careful that legislation neither raises false expectations nor ends up being unenforceable. I am happy to take views on that. The consultation will be as wide as possible. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, Baroness Scotland and I visited a refuge and centre in Camden today. We promised that the victims, as well as those who work with them, will be an essential part of the consultation. I accept entirely the point that the hon. Member for Meriden made on that.
	Specialist courts have proved their worth. With a new, invigorated partnership between myself and the interim Lord Chancellor, we should be able to make rapid progress. We will certainly be able to do that on training. Lord Falconer and I jointly visited the judicial studies board just few weeks ago and we are keen to work with it on building up expertise. In those circumstances where there is no specialist court, we propose to combine cases so that they can be handled by someone with the relevant expertise on a particular day in a particular week.
	Teaching at an early stage is vital. In addition to teaching citizenship and democracy and providing personal social and health education, we need to spot early youngsters who display aggression and to take action on that. I want to discuss with the new Minister for Children how we can develop the children and young persons unit, and those investing in education, in a more positive way than has been possible in the past.
	The refuge provision is important. Some £19 million more is being spent this year than last year. I agree entirely, however, that "caravanning" people around the country is unacceptable. The damage to children in particular is incalculable because it disrupts the life and well-being of the family. That is why we want to find ways of getting alleged perpetrators out of the house and, when they are found guilty, keeping them away from the home. The Solicitor-General and I will talk to the Attorney-General about whether we should change the terminology of the orders so that people understand clearly what they mean.
	Again, I thank the hon. Member for Meriden for 99 per cent. of what she said and her welcome of the measures. I look forward to us all taking them forward together.

Julie Morgan: May I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and congratulate him on the consultation paper? I assure him that women in Wales will be pleased that the Government have recognised how vital and serious the issue is and that they are comprehensively planning to tackle it further. I thank him very much for that.
	I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend is keen to involve victims in the consultation procedure. Will he assure me that the consultation procedure will be extensive and include women and other people in Wales? Will he ensure that Wales is fully brought into the consultation? In particular, will he involve the trade unions? I pay tribute to the work that the trade unions, especially Unison in Wales, have done to bring the issue to the forefront in the workplace.

David Blunkett: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work in Wales. I am aware of the establishment of the centre in Cardiff, which has been a beacon for activity. Not only will we consult widely in the terms that we have laid down, but we will be happy to hear from hon. Members on both sides of the House about what we could reach out to in their locality. There will be three months of consultation. We want to introduce legislation in the new Session of Parliament because people will expect us to get on with it, but we want to do that properly and will be happy to consider suggestions on the nature of the scrutiny of that legislation before we present it to Parliament.

Simon Hughes: Domestic violence is a huge, horrible and unacceptable part of our national and home life. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who speaks on women's issues for the Liberal Democrats, and I welcome the statement, the consultation paper and many of the initiatives proposed. Our party will respond constructively, positively and urgently to the proposals in the paper.
	We share with the Home Secretary the view that education is as important as anything else and cannot begin too early. Can I assume from what he said that the first and perhaps central message is that from now on—if it was not the case before—no police officer in the land will regard allegations of domestic violence as something that they should not immediately pursue on the basis that it is a domestic matter and not for them? Can he assure me that no court in the land will regard alcohol or other drugs as an excuse for violence at home?
	Are statistics on domestic violence now kept separately, both nationally and locally? Is the Home Secretary satisfied that at a local level the advice is in place so that things do not get to a crisis point at which people have to leave home? Most importantly, will he work with his colleagues so that each local authority has the assurance, as my local borough of Southwark has, that the police and the local authority will act together with no bureaucracy and no delay to ensure that people get the refuge, sanctuary, housing, support and advice when they need it and for as long as they need it to look after the families affected?

David Blunkett: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's support. I assure him that not only are the police committed to doing the job singly, they are now committed, through the multi-agency panels and multi-agency reviews that are being undertaken on incidents of domestic violence, to ensuring that we have a joined-up system at a local level in which they work closely with other agencies and partners. I pay tribute to the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation for the way in which they have worked with us.
	Many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members have been close to the subject and have shown tremendous commitment to it. They will know that there has been a transformation in the approach that the police have taken to domestic violence incidents in recent years. They accept, and we accept, that there is still progress to be made, not least in terms of their response time and the immediacy of what is requested, as the hon. Gentleman said. I guarantee that we will give every possible support to those working with the police in making that progress possible.
	I agree that we need clear statistics. The British crime survey provides us with a better route than merely relying on recorded crime. Part of our task is to get people to come forward and to demonstrate that they need no longer fear having the crime recorded. We have some way to go before we get a totally accurate picture of what is taking place in society. The statistics that we have are horrendous enough, but we believe that they may well not give the full picture. In that spirit, I welcome the other propositions from the hon. Gentleman. I know that we can do a good job together, as the all-party committee has done, in making sure that on this matter, if on nothing else, we are all in unison.

Debra Shipley: I welcome my right hon. Friend's thoughtful statement. The elements that it contains have been argued and pleaded for by the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence, which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) has chaired with such great commitment. Does my right hon. Friend understand that there is something missing from his statement? I refer to outreach services to keep women in their homes, and in particular services for children who are affected. There is a serious gap in all services for children affected by domestic violence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to put real commitment and the necessary resources behind those?

David Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend. I accept that resources are needed, as well as a reshaping of services more broadly for youngsters who are emotionally and behaviourally disturbed. Tackling the causes, through prevention and early intervention, is at the root of what we are discussing this afternoon. Many youngsters are traumatised by the experience of seeing domestic violence. A third of children have seen domestic violence, and that rises to 50 per cent. where repeat offending takes place. It is an horrendous, traumatic experience for those youngsters, which they carry for the rest of their lives.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) would speak, but one of the penalties of being promoted to the Whips Office is that she is not allowed to address the House on these occasions.

Henry Bellingham: I welcome today's statement and the consultation paper. As the Home Secretary knows, there have been some particularly tragic cases in Norfolk, such as the Lauren Wright case. The right hon. Gentleman is also aware that many of us come across cases in which there has been a serious domestic disturbance; all too often the police are called but cannot or do not do anything about it, and then there is a recurrence. What is needed is a power of arrest so that the attacker is arrested immediately. The Home Secretary also mentioned the extra work that would be put on the shoulders of the police and the extra commitment that they will have to make. What does he intend to do about extra police resources? How many extra police officers will be required?

David Blunkett: On the first point, I accept entirely that the constituency issues that the hon. Gentleman raised require a multi-agency review of the cases that have taken place. A review is needed of the speed with which people operate. I have outlined changes to the sentencing advisory panel and the work of the Law Commission in response to the request that we are making.
	On the second point, I do not wish to be the least bit aggressive. The 4,300 extra police last year—we will shortly announce updated figures—demonstrate a real commitment. I also want to make it clear that the rise in violence generally in this country is accelerated by domestic violence, with a quarter of all violence being domestic violence and one in four women experiencing domestic violence. If we can direct resources to tackle that terrible abuse, we will see a reversal of the broader figures, which worry all of us.

Sally Keeble: May I welcome the consultation paper, which represents progress on several fronts for victims of domestic violence? I especially welcome the strengthening of the child contact procedures to ensure that proper assessment of the risk to children arises from contact orders. What steps will be taken to make sure that we progress the initiative jointly undertaken by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury to ensure proper funding for child contact centres? My constituency is keen to have one under the initiative. It is important that there are properly managed contact centres where estranged and absent parents can maintain contact with their children.

David Blunkett: That is essential. Under the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week, the responsibilities of my hon. Friend the new Minister for Children in the Department for Education and Skills will include aspects of the work of the Lord Chancellor's Department that dealt with domestic and court issues. It will be for her to take the matter forward. I will give every support, as will my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and Lord Falconer, to ensure that there is a sensible and reasonable settlement so that the centres can be expanded as quickly as possible.

Lady Hermon: The Home Secretary is aware that domestic violence is a serious problem in Northern Ireland, and that in recent weeks I have been frustrated and angry that the Criminal Justice Bill did not extend to Northern Ireland from the outset. Can he therefore confirm that the welcome proposals that he announced today will extend to Northern Ireland?

David Blunkett: We are liaising directly with the Northern Ireland Office. As the hon. Lady knows better than I do, in some respects Northern Ireland has been ahead of the consultation laid out today for England and Wales, not least in terms of arrestability and the way that cases are dealt with. I offer the proposal that the draft Bill should incorporate for Northern Ireland those aspects that are relevant to Northern Ireland and that are not already part of Northern Ireland practice. I thank the hon. Lady again for her assiduousness in making sure that we never forget.

Ann Cryer: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend recalls that just after we were elected, we issued a discussion document entitled "Living without Fear". Quite a chunk of that document was devoted to the work that schools could do to challenge behaviour. I know that my right hon. Friend has commented on that, and I appreciate the thrust of his announcement, but since the discussion document, not a great deal has been done through schools to work against macho and bullying behaviour. Could schools from nursery onwards be encouraged to challenge macho attitudes and violent behaviour, and could teachers get involved with children—often quite small children—who are witnessing violence at home? Certain sections of certain communities do not regard domestic violence as a problem. My suggestions would be a way of protecting women in the future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to the House that shorter questions, and perhaps shorter answers too, will enable me to call the maximum number of hon. Members?

David Blunkett: I shall heed your words, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who has done an enormous amount locally, and done so bravely, by taking on sensitive and difficult issues. Yes, we must challenge those views—both from parents who make that behaviour seem acceptable, and from youngsters who make it seem normal to their peer group. It is not acceptable, and we must get that message across to all sections of our—for it is our—community.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I warmly welcome the statement? From a practitioner's point of view, making common assault an arrestable offence is a sensible suggestion, as is the proposal that breaches of non-molestation orders and occupation orders should become criminal offences, with police having the power of arrest where warranted. Those important steps forward will deal properly with many incidents. The register of civil orders is another important innovation. I congratulate the Home Secretary and hope that I shall be able to play some small part in the consultation process.

David Blunkett: This is one occasion when I can be brief. Let us reach out together through the English and the Welsh languages to get this one sorted.

Judy Mallaber: May I particularly welcome the timing of the document, which enables me to launch it locally tomorrow at the annual general meeting of the East Derbyshire domestic violence forum? I echo the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) to consult trade unions and employers organisations. At my last workplace, it suddenly dawned on me that one of my staff found work a place of refuge from the violence that she suffered at home. It was important for me to give her time off to visit the local housing department and a quiet place to make phone calls, and to try to give support. Another member of my staff suffered violence, went back to her husband and disappeared, and we do not know what happened to her. It is important to develop workplace policies and I hope that that will be taken on board in the consultation.

David Blunkett: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that that was a question.

Sandra Gidley: Evidence shows that a history of domestic violence is linked with a history of violence against children. The access arrangements have recently been relaxed and far more men who have a history of violence are being allowed unsupervised access to children. Does the Home Secretary believe that, if men realise that they may be denied such access, they might think twice before hitting their wives?

David Blunkett: I think we all agree that men should think twice anyway, but we need to get a situation in play in which men respect the fact that they have a critical role in terms of their children and that if they behave in such a way, access will be either drastically restricted or removed all together. I think that that message should get through. We want to ensure that that happens in full consultation with employers and trade unions, and all those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) mentioned.

Tam Dalyell: I do not apologise for asking a male question. Pursuant to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), may I ask an autobiographical question? When I was a young teacher, I was desperately concerned about the plight of a boy whose family I thought were in great difficulties. I reported the matter through the usual channels and was then much criticised for meddling. All right, it may be a matter of suspicion, but what protection can be given to teachers who act in good faith and are in a position to know, and meddle, perhaps wrongly, in what is a desperately important subject for all of us?

David Blunkett: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. When I was at the Department for Education and Employment, as it then was, we set in train a protocol to protect teachers in such circumstances, including from counter-allegations.

Oona King: May I thank my right hon. Friend for prioritising this issue and pay tribute to the astonishing commitment of the Solicitor-General, who has transformed the approach that is taken to domestic violence? Women and children around the country will thank her for doing that.
	I am haunted by the case of my constituent who was attacked by her estranged husband last year. Following the attack, which was made on a Friday, she rang the police and said that she was in danger. Her husband returned on the Saturday and murdered her and her daughter. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that more protection will be given to victims when they first approach the police and other authorities?

David Blunkett: I can give that assurance. That is why the proposals determine that immediate action should be taken and that the law should be changed to make action possible immediately and on a charge being made, rather than at the point when sentencing takes place. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the role of the Solicitor-General, who has made my life a lot easier in so much of the work that she has done.

Linda Gilroy: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and take this opportunity to congratulate him on having a formidable team of women, including four women Ministers, who all have a track record in this area?
	My right hon. Friend mentioned the difficulties in getting victims to come forward as witnesses. One of those difficulties is the number of occasions on which courts cancel hearings. That is evident from what women in Plymouth tell me and from the internet consultation that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) set in motion as chairwoman of the all-party group on domestic violence. Will he say a little more about whether there are any early lessons in respect of the special courts that he mentioned? May I urge him to ensure that the review of the Crown Prosecution Service and the police will consider the matter in a robust way?

David Blunkett: I can assure my hon. Friend that it is crucial that we see this issue as part of criminal justice reform in terms of cracked and failed trials, listings and management of the court system in general, so that we can get this right. We will learn the lessons from the courts. I point out that there is a fifth woman Home Office Minister, in the House of Lords, and I know that she will be committed as well.

Kali Mountford: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and especially the review in respect of homicide cases, may I ask him also to look closely at cases of assault? All too often, the courts hand out sentences that merely reinforce offending behaviour. That can happen when a woman reports a serious assault, but only a charge of criminal damage is brought with regard to the man having kicked down a door to get at her. That sort of sentence does not do anything to give women confidence. Neither does the response of the police, as the policies of a division may be good, but they do not always filter through to the constable who makes the arrest. Will he also ensure that police at all levels are properly trained to respond appropriately when they are called upon?

David Blunkett: On training and speed, the answer is yes. On common assault and the immediate work of the Sentencing Advisory Panel, we are asking that body to do the work rather than waiting for the establishment of the sentencing guidelines council. We all accept that we need to get on with this.

Vera Baird: May I, too, welcome this wide-ranging and thoughtful statement and compliment the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General on the depth of the consultation in which he has already engaged in order to formulate the proposals?
	I am sorry that there is no reference to support being made available for children in refuges. I urge my right hon. Friend to recognise that he should consider that issue. About two thirds of children who accompany their mothers in such places have been abused themselves and clearly represent a vulnerable sector. In so far as contact is considered, will he ensure that it is looked at very closely indeed? The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service estimates that, in 16,000 contact cases last year, domestic violence had occurred in the marriage before it broke up, yet contact was refused in only 700 cases. Finally, when does he expect the consultation to turn into legislation?

David Blunkett: On the latter point, I hope to publish a draft Bill in the autumn, to consult widely about it and to introduce legislation with all-party support in the next Session. I recognise entirely that where there are gaps, we must fill them. It is a genuine pleasure, which I will not take for granted, to have my hon. and learned Friend's support.

Julia Drown: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and, in particular, his intention to widen the availability of restraining orders. Will he consider introducing non-controversial powers in advance of the domestic violence Bill? In particular, will he consider introducing exclusion orders that could be associated with assault, through which domestic violence cases are often brought to our courts at the moment? As I understand it, such provision could be introduced now under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Will he consider that issue? The sooner we can give domestic violence victims the confidence that they will be protected if they come forward and report a case, the better it will be for everybody.

David Blunkett: My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and other colleagues will look into the matter immediately. I shall not only write to my hon. Friend, but ensure that we include any action plan in the conclusion to the consultation so that we do not wait for legislation, but take forward measures in the interim.

Malcolm Savidge: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome statement and the Solicitor-General for the understanding and commitment that she has shown in respect of the case of my constituent Paula Watt's twin sister, Madeleine Humes, who died after being stabbed by her husband 12 times in 15 minutes in front of her children? The husband received a sentence that, with remission, could be a mere three and a half years, with earlier day release. Will consideration also be given to whether children's safety and welfare can properly be protected if there is a possibility of their subsequently being given into the custody of the killer?

David Blunkett: On the latter point, that is why it is so critical that we are readjusting the evidence provided when the cases are taken in terms of custody. That will be a crucial change. The first point clearly underlines the crucial nature of introducing the new sentencing principles and framework, within which the judges will now exercise a different sort of discretion.

Ann Keen: May I, too, pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend, as well as that of a former Member who is sadly no longer with us, Jo Richardson, who did so much and would today be so proud of this Government and the forthcoming Bill?
	What work will be done with the health service and, in particular, front-line nursing and medical staff in accident and emergency or even primary care? Victims are rarely able to have consultations on their own, and when it comes to the words "How did you do this?" or "How did this happen?", the truth seldom emerges. I believe that it takes up to 60 visits by victims to nursing or medical staff for it to do so. I would like very much to know what work is being done in the health service.

David Blunkett: I have an advantage here, in that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) has been elevated from her post in the Department of Health to that of Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety. She tells me that a pilot scheme is under way involving a range of questions to be asked automatically in such cases. I welcome that, as I know my hon. Friend will. Training is important, and that should include training people to spot instances in which someone needs to be able to speak quietly and privately to a nurse or female doctor—not least so that photographs can be obtained which may prove crucial later.
	I am very happy to associate myself with memories of Jo Richardson, whom I knew extremely well.

Jane Griffiths: I, too, welcome the statement.
	Does my right hon. Friend share my slight concern about the fact that this is one of the few parliamentary occasions featuring a large preponderance of female Labour Members? I hope that does not mean that our male colleagues are not interested in the important issue we are discussing.
	During the consultation, will my right hon. Friend work with Berkshire Women's Aid in my constituency, and also with Sahara, whose particular involvement is with women from ethnic minorities? A national 24-hour helpline is very useful, unless it is not available in languages that women can understand.

David Blunkett: I think we are all genuinely committed to this issue, and a message to that effect needs to be conveyed today. I commend the work that is being done for ethnic minorities in Berkshire and elsewhere. The issue of anonymity is crucial, given the cultural response that can be made to this sort of terrible abuse.

Points of Order

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having witnessed the Government's production of act II scene ii of "Iolanthe" this afternoon, I want to ask about questions to the Lord Chancellor's Department.
	When I went into the Table Office—this was the day for tabling questions to the Lord Chancellor's Department—I was informed that such questions would now be under the rubric of the Secretary of State of Constitutional Affairs. Not only is the Lord Chancellor now a shadow Lord Chancellor, however; the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has no statutory functions. How, then, can a spokesman for the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs be accountable to the House of Commons in respect of budgets and other matters arising from the Consolidated Fund and so forth? I am thinking in particular of the salaries that are so relevant to the independence of the judiciary in relation to the Supreme Court Acts from 1891 to 1981.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but the issue is far too detailed for me to handle. I suggest that he table a very detailed question to the appropriate Minister.

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday—this can be found in column 233 of Hansard—the Leader of the House told us that the designation "former Scotland Office" that appeared on the Order Paper had been drawn up by House authorities rather than the Government. Under persistent questioning, he repeated that a number of times. The same was said by the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee yesterday.
	I have good reason to believe that the designation came to the House authorities from the Scotland Office, probably last Friday. If that is the case, is it not reasonable to raise a point of order about protection of House officials from suggestions by Ministers that they were responsible for an inaccuracy—and also about protection of Members from being misled? No doubt the misleading was inadvertent, but the Government do seem rather desperate to conceal the confusion and chaos that lay at the heart of the reshuffle.
	As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is difficult to ask specific parliamentary questions about such matters because of our terms of reference. Can you advise me on how we can establish from the new Leader of the House whether what I say is accurate?

Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)? The Order Paper is drawn up by officials of the House acting on information that they gather from a number of sources. I cannot say more than that at this stage. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's point of order, I suggest that he consult the Table Office, which I am sure will be able to help him.

Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a very substantial point of order, particularly as it relates to civil servants who may not be sure to which Minister they are responsible.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps there is a shortage of clarity in the House at present, but it is not for me to comment on that.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think you know that I am very much in favour of robust exchanges in the House, which bring it to life. You may also know, however, that today, during the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition following the Prime Minister's statement, there was an unusually high—some might say unacceptable—level of orchestrated barracking from Labour Members on your side of the Gangway. Worse than that—you may not be aware of this, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a number of Government Whips were placed strategically on the Back Benches, and seemed to be playing a leading role.
	If all that turned out to be true, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you or Mr. Speaker be able to do anything to prevent the Government from using paid Ministers—for Whips are Ministers—to orchestrate the attempted silencing of the Leader of the Opposition, or indeed any other Member? This is a serious matter. I observed what happened, as did many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We really need to know whether we collectively, and the House as a whole, can be protected against such abuse by the Government and by Ministers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that any organised barracking of the kind described by the right hon. Gentleman would always be deplored by the Chair. I am sure that the Chairman of Ways and Means, who was in the Chair earlier, dealt with the matter adequately, but I think that all of us—the occupant of the Chair, and the House of Commons as a whole—should take seriously what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At Question Time today, the Prime Minister was asked yet again about the appearance of Alastair Campbell before the Foreign Affairs Committee as a witness. As I think Hansard will confirm, the Prime Minister told the House that officials did not appear before Select Committees as witnesses.
	You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is patently not true. We learn from page 2305 of today's Order Paper that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is to take evidence from Sir Brian Bender, permanent secretary to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and that the Treasury Sub-Committee is to take evidence from Sir Nicholas Montagu, who is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wanted to deal with the point of order fairly quickly. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether it is normal for officials to appear before Select Committees, the answer is yes.

Michael Fabricant: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think I have dealt with the matter.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Michael Fabricant: It is a different point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think I have dealt with it.

Domestic Violence (Law Reform)

John Bercow: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to domestic violence.
	I think I owe you and the House an explanation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I booked my slot approximately three months ago. It is one thing to hear a satisfactory policy announcement from the Government after one has spoken in favour of a change in the law; but to hear a satisfactory policy announcement from the Home Secretary before one has even opened one's mouth is an example of pre-emptive gratification which I hope will be emulated many times in the succeeding weeks, months and years of this Parliament.
	I say at the outset, consistent with the non-partisan spirit of the exchanges on the statement, that I was enormously encouraged by what we heard from the Home Secretary. It was a truly ground-breaking statement of intended social reform upon which I warmly congratulate him. We also heard a typically gracious, probing and constructive contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and, likewise, from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). How right it is that those exchanges should have taken place in the way that they did.
	In the period since I was elected in May 1997, interest in this House in the subject of domestic violence has been reflected in no fewer than 365 written questions, 74 oral questions and at least eight Adjournments debates initiated by Members from all parties. As we go forward by debating the consultation document, there is a real prospect that a genuine change in the law and in attitudes can take place that will be of enduring benefit to millions of people—predominantly, though admittedly not exclusively, women.
	The Home Secretary explained the factual background to his decision to make the statement and to issue the consultation document. Perhaps I may express the point in a slightly different way. Last year, according to the British crime survey, about 635,000 incidents of domestic violence took place. An assault on a woman takes place approximately once every 26 seconds, from which it logically follows, I am sorry to have to say, that in the period for which I am on my feet with the privilege of addressing the House on this momentous issue, some 20 attacks on women will take place. Two women a week die as a result of domestic violence. We learn from the World Health Organisation that, as a cause of death and disability, domestic violence now plays a bigger role than cancer, road accidents and war. That is the seriousness of the situation. Of course, enormous costs are involved—not only the human cost in terms of the terrible toll of individual suffering and personal misery, but other costs, too. There are costs to the criminal justice system and to the national health service and social services, as well as a significant cost to the economy in consequence of the fact that many thousands of women are too sick or traumatised to work.
	I am glad that the Home Secretary said that the Government intend to expand the supply of refuge places. He was absolutely right to do so, because there is significant pressure on places. In the Thames valley region, of which my constituency forms a part, refuges in Aylesbury, Milton Keynes and High Wycombe are full to bursting. They often have to turn people away and encourage them to find a place elsewhere because they cannot be accommodated. That is a terrible indictment of a civilised society, and the Home Secretary is right to seek to change the situation for the better.
	I should like, by way of a legislative proposal of my own, to set out an offering that I hope that Ministers and other Members of Parliament will be prepared to consider. First, I commend to the Home Secretary the idea of a national domestic violence register that includes people who have served custodial sentences and possibly those who have been subject to restraining orders or court injunctions. That could be in the interests of suffering women, of the police going about their work, of the statutory and voluntary agencies engaged in co-operative work to tackle domestic violence, and of employers undertaking job checks on people who seek employment. In that sense, I suggest that there is an imperfect but relevant analogy between the proposal for a national domestic violence register and the sex offenders register.
	Secondly, I impress upon the Home Secretary the importance of pressurising the Crown Prosecution Service, through much stronger guidance, ordinarily to pursue prosecutions even when the victim does not wish to do so. If there is neighbour testimony, photographic evidence or clear proof of injury, there must be a public interest argument for going ahead with prosecutions. Half of all cases are dropped before they get to court, in four fifths of cases because women are too fearful to proceed. Let us try to imitate what happens in Minnesota in the United States, where the presumption on which public policy proceeds is that prosecution, even without the victim's support or involvement, is the norm, not the exception.
	Thirdly, I suggest that the Government are right to seek to amend the Children Act 1989 to underpin the responsibility of the court to satisfy itself that the child and his or her mother will be safe in cases of contact with the offending parent. I am glad that the Home Secretary mentioned that in his statement. If he has trouble with the business managers finding a legislative slot, I am not a proud man, and I would be very happy to use my ten-minute Bill as the vehicle by which he can achieve this welcome change in the law, which commands all-party support.
	Fourthly, there is a case, as was emphasised by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and others, for an expansion of specialist children's services. There should be people in refuges specifically to attend to the needs of children. Therapy sessions should be available, and doctors and teachers need to be trained to identify children who are suffering or at risk, so that effective action can be taken as early as possible to help those young people.
	Fifthly, I strongly believe that there is a powerful argument for trying to emulate what is done by Sunderland city council's housing authority, which has a tenancy agreement that allows for the removal of a domestic violence offender and his placement in a refuge or shelter himself in order that he can get therapy and the chance of rehabilitation. That is, of course, a debatable point. Many women will want to flee to get away from the harrowing and vicious environment in which they have suffered, but the presumption should not be that it is always the woman who has to move out.
	Finally, the Government are right to consider waiving the rule that says that people whose nationality status is uncertain and who are awaiting determination of their immigration cases should have no access to public funds. They need income support and housing benefit, and a means by which to live and to get legal guidance. I welcome the Government's intention to change the law in that respect.
	Much remains to be done. Too many people in this country and elsewhere have suffered too much over too long a period. It is extremely welcome that the Government intend to act, and the Opposition are right to take a sympathetic and constructive approach. We support the principles and will back much of the detail. My Bill is available for the purposes of the Government if they would like to take advantage of my offer. I appeal to the House again to show itself at its best by supporting this measure as a demonstration of our commitment to tackle one of the most abominable evils in this society at the present time.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Bercow, Michael Fabricant, Sandra Gidley, Jane Griffiths, Mr. Robert Key, Mr. George Osborne, Linda Perham, Mr. Anthony Steen, Ms Dari Taylor, and Mr. Robert Walter.

Domestic Violence (Law Reform)

Mr. John Bercow accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to domestic violence: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed [Bill 126].

European Affairs

[Relevant document: The Twenty-fourth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee of Session 2002–03, on the Convention on the Future of Europe and the Role of National Parliaments (HC63—xxiv).]
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Jack Straw: The Greek presidency of the European Union will host the European Council in Thessaloniki tomorrow and on Friday 19 and Saturday 20 June. Today, the House has its customary opportunity to debate the Government's priorities.
	The summit is important. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the president of the Convention on the Future of Europe, will submit a draft constitutional treaty for the European Union to the heads of Government of the member states and the candidate countries. The draft is the culmination of 16 months of negotiation by national delegates and representatives of the European Commission and the European Parliament. I pay tribute to the British team, whose members are my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), Lord Maclennan, Lord Tomlinson and Baroness Scotland. Of course, representatives of different parties approach the issue from different viewpoints and that is entirely right. However, all members of the team sought assiduously to represent the interests of their party.
	Brokering a text between representatives of 15 member states as well as the 13 candidate countries was never going to be easy, but the Convention's draft treaty provides a good starting point for the negotiations between the member states. I emphasise that the draft is simply a basis for negotiation. Like any draft, the constitutional treaty is open to improvement and amendment. In the tradition of EU treaties, the hard bargaining and last-minute agreements prior to a final deal will be reached by the democratically elected heads of the EU's constituent parts—the nation states—by unanimity.
	At Thessaloniki, some EU leaders may offer specific comments on the text of the draft treaty, but the focus will be on the arrangements for the second, decisive round of the negotiations between the member states and the accession countries in an intergovernmental conference. I expect EU leaders to endorse a broad mandate for the IGC. Member states and the accession countries should be able to re-examine all articles in the text and not be restricted to any points of contention that Valéry Giscard d'Estaing identified. That was the clear recommendation of European Foreign Ministers in their meeting in Luxembourg on Monday.

Jim Marshall: I thought that I would ask my right hon. Friend a question while he is clearly in a good mood. He referred to the constitutional aspects of the Convention's proposals. He will remember that one of the other objectives of the Laeken summit was to try to connect EU citizens to the Union. Does he perceive anything in the Convention that is likely to forward that objective? I, for one, cannot.

Jack Straw: I can. I know that my hon. Friend shares my view that the Convention, if it is implemented as we would like through the IGC, will not be a magical instrument that suddenly transforms the EU's reputation for opacity into one for clarity. The structure is complex, not least because of member nation states' desire and determination to ensure that they keep control of the EU, which is their property. Whereas here, decisions are made by simple majority, which is clear cut, in the European Union they are rightly made either through qualified majority—almost the equivalent to a two-thirds majority in a national Parliament, but more complex—or by unanimity.
	Let us consider the way in which the Convention could make the system clearer. First, there will be a clearer understanding of the nature of the institutions. That is already starting to happen. There will be a single text. As my hon. Friend knows, the Opposition go on about how dreadful the idea of an EU constitution is. However, there is currently not one EU constitution but a series of constitutions in four separate texts. It is far better to amalgamate them into one, with some intellectual and legal hierarchy.
	Secondly, part of the purpose of a president—not a permanent president, as the Opposition claimed this morning, but one elected for two and a half years, with the possibility of a double term of five years—is better and more effective representation of the European Council, which is the council of nations, in the EU. That will affect the balance of power, and is therefore important.
	Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House successfully pushed for national Parliaments to be much more involved in the proposals for European legislation. Any proposals for European law will have to be communicated to national Parliaments, which will scrutinise them. If more than a third object—that could easily happen with 25 national Parliaments—it serves as a yellow card, or warning, to the Commission. I want those arrangements to be upgraded, but at least we have a start.
	Fourthly, there is greater clarity in the constitution because when EU powers exist, that is made clear in language that people can understand: for example, EU laws are called "laws". They are currently called regulations, and we tend to view them as resembling byelaws. However, EU regulations are a form of law, and they should be called laws.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jack Straw: I shall give way shortly.
	Fifthly, there will be much debate about the fact that in some respects, EU law can override domestic law. "Benchmarks" today refers to
	"the tests Blair must not fail".
	Nobody could pass such tests because they bear no relation to reality. The Conservative party's document says that an EU constitution that overrides national constitutions must be excised. The idea that the French, Italian and German constitutions are overridden by an EU constitution is bizarre. However, on matters of EU competence, EU law, once agreed, must apply to every member state. Otherwise, we could not have a Union. There is nothing new about that; the Conservative party voted and fought for it since 1971 when it negotiated entry, and section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 provides for it. I do not understand the Conservatives' curious objection to the principle 30 years later.

Michael Ancram: Earlier, the Foreign Secretary said he welcomed what he described as the yellow card that national Parliaments could show to legislative initiatives from the Commission. He said that he wanted the proposal to be upgraded. Does he envisage upgrading it to a red card?

Jack Straw: We are considering that. It ties into qualified majority voting, under which a proposal requires a minimum of between 60 and 65 per cent. support to get through. If half the national Parliaments object to a proposal, it is palpably obvious that it cannot get through the Council of Ministers.

George Osborne: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress, I shall do so later.
	During the Supply day debate on the Convention last week, I emphasised my commitment and that of the Government to maximum parliamentary scrutiny of the Convention's proposals. I said then that, as a start, a full day's debate would take place in Government time early next month. There is a great deal of expertise about the European Union in all parties and in both Houses, as well as Members with strong opinions. Many, but not all, serve on Committees that are relevant to European Union work. With my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I shall consult the Chairs of the Committees, and through the usual channels, about the way in which Parliament can best be involved in the work of scrutinising the Convention's proposals so that we have a better mandate at the IGC. One of the issues that can be dealt with in that way will be how better to upgrade what is currently a yellow card into a red card. Alongside that formal consultation process, we will of course welcome suggestions and proposals from any right hon. and hon. Members, both during this debate and outside the House.

George Osborne: The Foreign Secretary has identified the things in the Convention that he welcomes and those that he wants to build on when he gets to Thessaloniki. What are the two or three things that the British Government will absolutely not accept in the draft constitution?

Jack Straw: If I may, I shall come to that later.

John Bercow: In the light of what the Foreign Secretary has said about the role of national Parliaments, how does he justify article 108 of the treaty of Amsterdam, in which we are told that Governments of the member states undertake to respect the principle that the European Central Bank will take no representations from outside bodies? Does he think it acceptable in a democracy that the cost of mortgages and the price of business borrowings would hereafter be determined by people whom we do not elect, whom we cannot remove and whom it would be illegal to seek to persuade of the British national point of view?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman raises an important, if detailed, point. I confess that I am not as familiar with article 108 as he is, but I now have a copy in front of me. There is a case for greater transparency in the way in which the ECB operates, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in any event made proposals for improvements in the monetary mechanisms inside the European Union. If, however, it is felt that there are ways in which we can improve article 108 or its successor at the IGC, let us have those proposals. If there is a strong point to be made on issues such as these, we have allies elsewhere in the Convention and among other Governments.

Tam Dalyell: I do not want to disrupt the Foreign Secretary's flow, but there is one matter that should be considered with regard to the relations between this Parliament and the European institutions. It is the question of fraud in the Community. As a former member of the Budget Sub-Committee of the European Parliament, when it was indirectly elected, I know that this is a very difficult subject. There is not only the case of Andreasen; there are various others. The Public Accounts Committee of this House should surely have some locus in examining these difficult matters. I have received a long letter from the Chairman of the Committee, saying that it could not look at the particular case of a whistleblower who, in the serious opinion of his lawyers, had a good case against the Commission. Could the role of the Public Accounts Committee in such circumstances be considered?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend certainly makes a strong point. I cannot promise that I can deliver on his request, but I will promise to look into it closely. I recall that 20 years ago, when I was a junior Front-Bench spokesman on the Treasury, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), I looked closely at the level of fraud—and the paucity of detection of fraud—in the European Union. The situation has got a bit better since then, but it is still not satisfactory.
	The achievement of the European Union over the past 50 years is something that people take for granted these days. Its case is often put in material terms—the end of customs, for example, and the single market in goods and services—and these are clearly important. But—to pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall)—beyond that is what the Union has done to help to make a reality of human rights and democracy. That point is often missed when making the argument for the EU.
	When I was a young man, eastern Europe was surrounded by the iron curtain, and there were three right-wing dictatorships in western Europe, in Spain, Portugal and Greece. What the EU has done—first in those three countries, then in eastern Europe—is to help to make a reality of human rights and democracy in those nations. Above and beyond that—as we can now see, 50 years on—the Union's most profound achievement has been to secure an absence of war.
	I think about this matter a great deal, and I guess that because European nations have historically found their relationships with one another difficult, we resort to the most convoluted argument to avoid violence. That in turn has been translated into lengthy texts and sometimes totally opaque practices in the European Union. In some ways, that is a small price to pay for the avoidance of the killing fields of the Somme or Verdun, but these days it is not such a convincing excuse for unacceptable practices, particularly for those who have no direct memory of European war.
	The European Union can, therefore, seem unjustifiably rule-bound and bureaucratic—it is a far from perfect organisation—so I hope that the combined effect of the Convention's proposals, its scrutiny by Government and Parliament, and the outcome of the IGC, will be a better functioning EU. But let me reassure the House about some things that will not happen. The result of any new constitution will not be to alter the fundamental relationship between the EU and its member states. Foreign and defence policy will remain intergovernmental. We will not accept qualified majority voting on tax, social security or criminal law and procedures, and "federal" will not feature as either a word or a concept.

Malcolm Bruce: Given that the Convention now appears to propose that the Union as a whole should accede to the European convention on human rights—a proposal that the Government have resisted up to now—does the Foreign Secretary now accept that that would be the best way to ensure commonality of human rights law rather than conflict? Will the Government now accept that proposal?

Jack Straw: We are examining that issue, but there is already clear acknowledge of the European convention on human rights in the consolidated treaties, so this is not a completely new proposal.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for the way in which he is involving Parliament a great deal in this process. However, does he not see the danger in the proposal in the current draft to have a very powerful unelected Foreign Minister for the EU, who would be senior to him and who would have the right to represent us in all important matters and to use our United Nations seat whenever he saw fit? Surely this represents a fundamental change in the relationship between us and the EU.

Jack Straw: I have genuine respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I tried to put him right yesterday in a meeting outside the House: this is simply not the case. Whether such a Minister would be senior to me would depend on the reputation he managed to achieve; he certainly would not be senior in terms of seniority.

Michael Ancram: It could be you.

Jack Straw: Thank you very much. If it were me, that would be fine; there would be no problems at all.
	As for this canard, this confection, that we are going to lose our seat on the United Nations Security Council, let me tell the House that we are not. The United Nations is an association of sovereign nation states, and only nation states can exercise votes in the UN. The EU is an association of nation states; it is not a sovereign nation state.

Michael Ancram: Yet.

Jack Straw: I cannot predict what is going to happen in 100 years. I can, however, tell the right hon. Gentleman the terms of any proposition that will come before the House under this Government, and we will never vote for any suggestion of the European Union becoming a federal superstate. We are simply not going to do that.

Menzies Campbell: In considering the relationship between the United Nations and European states, will the Foreign Secretary also have regard to the fact that the constitution of the United Nations is of course its charter, and that only the United Nations itself can alter its own charter?

Jack Straw: There is another point that I have made often enough about the UN charter. Returning again to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South, there is a beautifully drafted document that is very clear and much smaller than the consolidated treaties and the IGC's result, but at least that result will be better than the current treaties.

Michael Spicer: The Foreign Secretary said that foreign policy would remain intergovernmental. That is the opposite of what the Convention is proposing. Does he intend to veto those Convention proposals at the IGC?

Jack Straw: With respect, it is not the opposite of what is said in the draft constitution, which makes it clear that, while there is some subsidiary QMV, the main foreign policy decisions to achieve a common position have to be taken by unanimity. We object to some aspects of the proposals relating to a European Foreign Minister, and we will seek to have them changed. One of them, which is rather important, is in relation to the European Foreign Minister's so-called double-hatting. We believe that it should be made crystal clear that, although he or she may be a Vice-President of the Commission, he or she is not subject to the collective responsibility of the Commission, but is answerable solely to the Council.
	The other area that the hon. Gentleman may have been thinking about is in draft article I-24, wherein, not only in relation to foreign policy but more generally, a power is sought, by unanimity in a six-month consultation period, to shift certain new areas to QMV. We do not find that acceptable and we will seek to change it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jack Straw: If I may, I will make some progress, as I have already been on my feet for 22 minutes.
	As for the charter of rights, the draft treaty includes a statement of rights. I think that our citizens should be told the rights that they have vis-à-vis the European institutions, and we could accept such a statement provided that it does not extend the powers of the Union. This, like much else, will depend on the precise terms of the final package, but in the Convention we negotiated important changes in articles II-51 and II-52, which help to define the scope and meaning of the charter's provisions. For example, member states would be affected only when implementing agreed Union law, and the net effect of our proposals is to ensure that the charter will not extend the Union's competence or powers.
	As the House will see in a 10-point summary that I placed in the Library today, the treaty creates a framework for a Union of nations, not a superstate. I draw attention to six points in the draft treaty that emphasise the role of the nations. First, the treaty will include a statement that competences not explicitly conferred on the Union in the treaty remain with the nation states. Secondly, the draft specifies that the Union shall act only if the objectives cannot "sufficiently be achieved" by the nations. Thirdly, the draft grants a new power to national Parliaments to ask the Commission to review its proposals. Fourthly, the text includes a statement that national leaders, in the shape of the European Council, shall provide the union with its political direction and priorities. Fifthly, the draft creates a new post of a chair or president to drive forward the work of the European Council. Sixthly, the text includes a reference to the fact that the current veto on foreign policy will remain.

Llew Smith: The Foreign Secretary has outlined how Parliament will be affected by the treaty. Will he comment on how Parliament will be affected as a result of article 107 of the Maastricht treaty if we go into the single currency? Does he accept that, as that article makes it illegal for democratically elected representatives or their respective institutions to try to influence the European Central Bank on the performance of its tasks, if we have a problem of poverty or unemployment in our community and we are not happy with how it is being dealt with, we will not be able to exert any influence on the Bank to change its policy? Is not that crazy?

Jack Straw: I have just answered that question, but I will seek to answer it again. This debate, happily—or unhappily—is not about the euro. If and when Parliament passes a Bill to propose that we go into the euro, there will be the fullest possible debate in the country, because there are clear constitutional implications, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend—unless he has a damascene conversion—will then make points such as the one that he has just made. Article 107 says that no members of the decision-making bodies
	"shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other body."
	That does not stop them being influenced, reading newspapers and receiving information. The provision is there, as with the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, to ensure that they are not in anybody's pocket, and I think that in principle it is a good thing, not a bad thing.
	The Convention's text seeks to settle the balance between the nations and the Union where it should be, with the nations as the anchor of the Union, and it makes it clearer than at any other point in the past half-century that it is the nation state that provides the Union's key source of democratic legitimacy.
	The second main item for discussion at Thessaloniki will be asylum and immigration. EU leaders have long recognised the case for more concerted common action to tackle these issues. Four years ago, at the Tampere summit in Finland, an ambitious agenda was agreed, which was given a further boost at the Seville European Council last year. A joint Spanish-UK initiative set time-limited targets for the agreement of common minimum standards on asylum—

Richard Spring: And let us keep Gibraltar.

Jack Straw: Happily, this speech does not mention Gibraltar.

Denis MacShane: That is for me.

Jack Straw: And it is in safe hands.
	As I was saying, a joint Spanish-UK initiative set time-limited targets for the agreement of common minimum standards on asylum, and measures to deliver the Tampere agenda.
	At Thessaloniki, the EU leaders will review progress on the package of measures agreed at Seville 12 months ago. Progress has been good. Legal instruments on minimum asylum standards have either been agreed or are due to be agreed by the end of this year. There has been an increase in operational co-operation between member states on border control initiatives. We welcome further concrete progress, and I am pleased to tell the House that it is in hand. A number of common projects are beginning to deliver results, most notably the Finnish-led common risk analysis centre, which is a vital element in the development of targeted intelligence-led operations.
	In Greece at the end of the week, heads of Governments will consider three reports from the European Commission. The first is on more accessible, equitable and managed asylum systems, the second on illegal immigration returns and border controls, and the third on employment and the integration of migrants. The first report was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the informal European Council in Athens two months ago. Our objective is to develop proposals for the better management of the asylum process globally, reducing unfounded applications and providing more equitable protection for refugees. We will continue to encourage the Commission to develop this work in parallel with member states and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
	At Thessaloniki we will encourage member states to support the presidency's proposals for a European return fund, which will give financial support to activity linked to returns of illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers and implement the EU returns action programme adopted in November.
	As usual, there will be a discussion of major foreign policy and security issues at the end of the week. Following the latest spiral of killings in Israel and the Occupied Territories, we will press for the European Union, as a member of the Quartet group responsible for the road map, to urge both parties to recognise that violence only strengthens the hands of extremists on both sides, and that dialogue is the only way forward.
	On Monday, at my suggestion, EU Foreign Ministers agreed to examine new measures to isolate Hamas. We agreed that we should
	"urgently examine the case for wider action against Hamas fund raising."
	Following proposals that I made as Home Secretary, and separate proposals in the European Union, we proscribed Hamas IDQ, the so-called military wing of Hamas, which enables us to freeze its assets and take other measures, but at the time the evidence was not considered strong enough to justify proscribing the other part of Hamas, its so-called charitable and political wing. These days, there is an increasing consensus that both organisations are, in fact, one. That matter is being examined not only here, but, at my instigation, in the European Union.

Michael Fabricant: The information that the Foreign Secretary has provided is helpful and encouraging. However, in the light of recent bombings, does he recognise that not only Hamas but Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad are involved, and that they are believed to be funded by other sovereign states in the region? Is there a role for the European Union to exert some pressure on those middle east countries that are helping to fund the terrorist groups, and will the Foreign Secretary raise the matter at the IGC?

Jack Straw: We are going to raise it not at the IGC, but at the European Council at the end of the week. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is highly probable that some countries fund those rejectionist terrorist groups. Part of the dialogue between the EU and countries such as Syria and Iran is about ending their support for rejectionist terrorist groups.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jack Straw: I shall give way, for the last time, to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant).

Chris Bryant: Does not discussion of the role that the EU can play in the middle east peace process demonstrate that wherever the EU can develop a joint foreign policy, it can be far more effective?

Jack Straw: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Where we can agree, as 25, the result of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. We have policies in respect of the middle east peace process—and of Iran, for example, to which I shall return in a moment. We can pursue such issues bilaterally and as a member of the Security Council, but where we can get our 24 European Union colleagues on board, we are immeasurably strengthened. I can also tell my hon. Friend that it has been interesting to see over the last three months how much difference the extra 10 countries can make. Most of them are instinctively in sympathy with the broad foreign policy positions of the UK Government, so the chemical balance inside the European Foreign Ministers Council has changed.
	On Iraq, we will want to explore how the EU can play a significant role in political and economic reconstruction. There have been welcome signs in recent weeks that member states are prepared to set aside their differences and work together to deliver the prosperous future that the Iraqi people deserve. That will also be a theme for the discussion at the EU-US summit in a couple of weeks' time, when Greece will represent EU member states. Our advice to the Greek presidency is clear. The EU-US relationship has been the fulcrum of global order for more than half a century. It provides the strongest possible foundation for our collective effort to tackle the great strategic challenges of the 21st century, from international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to trade barriers and economic injustice.
	At the weekend, the EU's High Representative, Javier Solana, will present a "European security strategy" covering WMD, international crime and instability on the EU's borders, and we expect it to form the basis for a policy toolbox. Any effective security strategy must be backed with credible military capabilities. Again at the weekend, EU leaders will welcome the significant progress made in the last six months, particularly the implementation of the so-called "Berlin plus" arrangements, under which the EU will enjoy access to NATO assets and capabilities, and the EU's first military mission in Macedonia.
	In recent days, the people of Poland and the Czech Republic have voted by overwhelming majorities to accede to the European Union next year. Their peoples had to struggle for decades against the yoke of Soviet imperialism to gain national sovereignty, so they were voting not to lose their national sovereignty inside the EU, but to share their sovereignty in order to be stronger in international relations and in Europe. Eight of the 10 candidate countries have now confirmed their readiness to join the EU next year.
	The UK has always been a leading champion of enlargement. It is not just a matter of historical obligation to the half of our continent that suffered most during the cold war; it is about our national interest. Enlargement will mean more jobs, more opportunity, increased prosperity and greater security for British citizens. For that reason, too, we will continue to make the case for the accession of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. I hope that December's European Council in Rome might agree a more precise framework for Bulgaria and Romania's remaining negotiations. I also hope that at the weekend, EU leaders will encourage Turkey to continue its progress towards fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria in time for the decisive December 2004 European Council.
	Opponents of enlargement often point to the risks of dilution of the EU's founding ideals. They argue that in a union of 25 or more member states, agreement will be possible only on the least contentious issues, and the Union will lose direction and strategic coherence. I have always believed that the reverse is true. Only an enlarged European Union, stretching to the geographical boundaries of the continent, can realistically hope to tackle the problems that do not respect borders. Nor do I think that an enlarged EU will succumb to an endless power struggle between so-called federal and non-federal visions of Europe.
	The draft that EU Heads of Government will receive at Thessaloniki provides a basis for a constitutional treaty that will be clear, help its institutions and member states manage the EU more effectively, and enable us to co-operate more closely in foreign policy and the fight against crime. That will be an effective Europe with strong institutions that attract the support of Europe's citizens, and a more democratic Europe, anchored in the legitimacy of the nation states. That is what we shall be working for at the European Council this weekend.

Michael Ancram: Today's debate is more significant than the regular European tour d'horizons that we have in the House every six months— we can use foreign language on this side of the House, too. After the Foreign Secretary's speech today, we shall have to reach some agreement on the pronunciation of names, or we shall find ourselves talking about our trips to "Paree" and "Firenze" and meeting President Putin in "Moskva". I am sure that we do not want to get into that. I hope that the Foreign Secretary agrees that, where an English pronunciation of a place name is available, we should use it.
	The summit in Thessalonica is no run-of-the-mill summit. It will receive, and begin the discussions on, the recommendations of the Giscard d'Estaing Convention.
	I listened with growing amazement and disbelief to the Foreign Secretary. I cannot understand whom he is trying to kid. He is too intelligent to take seriously the false analysis of the outcome of the Convention that he keeps repeating. What he has sought to do once again is to create a false debate. The only reason that I can see for that is fear of the real debate. We have heard him claim once again that the outcome of the Convention does not amount to very much—not enough to get hot under the collar about, and certainly not enough to justify a referendum.
	The Foreign Secretary knows that that is arrant nonsense. I make no accusation of dishonesty against him; in many ways, he personifies sincerity. We can all recall the sincerity with which he presented the dodgy dossier to the world in February, and he was praised by Secretary Colin Powell. Today we have seen him present, with equally wide-eyed sincerity, what I believe will become known as the dodgy debate.
	The Convention set out to achieve a new status and direction for the EU, and it has achieved that. I cannot understand why the Government are so keen to deny that fact. It is not as if they believe, at the end of the day, that they can get away with it. For a start, their colleagues in Europe will not let them.
	On 21 May, the Foreign Secretary told the House:
	"No one should get obsessed about the fact that it will be called a constitution."—[Official Report, 21 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 1030.]
	Not so, says former Italian Prime Minister and Convention member Lamberto Dini, who warned on 1 June:
	"Anyone in Britain who claims the constitution will not change things is trying to sweeten the pill for those who don't want to see a bigger role for Europe. The constitution is not just an intellectual exercise. It will quickly change people's lives . . . Eventually the union will . . . become an institution and organisation in its own right."
	That is one voice.
	On 11 June, the Foreign Secretary told us:
	"What the Convention is proposing . . . will not alter the fundamental constitutional balance between the European Union's institutions and the member nation states."—[Official Report, 11 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 712.]
	However, on 28 May Danish Premier Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated:
	"What is at stake is so new and big that it is right to hold a referendum".
	And Inigo Mendez de Vigo, a Spanish Convention member, announced:
	"This is the most important text since the Treaty of Rome in 1957."
	While the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister strive to persuade us that the proposed constitutional change is nothing—that it alters no relationships and merely tidies up—German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer proudly proclaims:
	"We have a draft constitution that is worthy of the word historic."
	He continues, even more forcibly:
	"It is the most important treaty since the formation of the European economic community."
	Those are not the words of someone welcoming a tidying-up exercise or something that will not fundamentally change the relationship between ourselves and Europe. Why should we believe the Foreign Secretary when the weight of comment from Europe contradicts him? Are there rogue elements in Europe as well as in the security services seeking to undermine the Government?
	I know whom the British people believe on this, and it is not the Government. To be fair to the Government, at least the Chancellor knows the score. The Treasury's single currency assessments, published last week, on page 220, state:
	"Many of the issues being considered by the European Convention could have far reaching consequences for the future performance of EU economies whether they are part of the euro area or not."
	That means us, and it does not sound like tidying up.
	Why is the Foreign Secretary so reticent? The Prime Minister has frequently called for the building of a European superpower—and that is not my word, but the word that he uses. That is what the proposed constitution lying on the table in Thessalonica is, at the very least, proposing. The truth is that the draft constitution constitutes a step change away from the Europe of nations to a political entity in its own right.

Jack Straw: I have listened with care to the right hon. Gentleman, whose speech has obviously been drafted by the Leader of the Opposition's speechwriter. He has given several quotations, but if he wants more authoritative observations from people who are keen federalists, I offer him the following. Romano Prodi said that the text
	"lacks vision and ambition. It is in some respects a step backwards"—
	meaning a step backwards to the nation states.

John Bercow: He is a federalist.

Jack Straw: I know, but he is saying the Convention is a step backwards. That is exactly my point. He is indeed a federalist, but he sees it as a step backwards, not forwards. The even more extreme federalist, Giuliano Amato, who has been vice-president of the Convention, said—according to The Daily Telegraph on 24 May—when he saw the texts:
	"I want to kill myself."

Michael Ancram: I hesitate to suggest that he must have just heard a speech by the Foreign Secretary before making that remark. If we are to have an honest debate, we must consider the proposals as a whole. There is no point in producing, time after time, arguments suggesting that this enormous document, which calls itself a constitution, is not a constitution. The Foreign Secretary said that it did not have primacy, but the document itself, in paragraph I-10.1, states:
	"The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union's Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States."
	That is precisely what I suggested and what the Foreign Secretary contradicted.
	We must look at the proposals as a whole. The constitution creates constitutional primacy, a legal personality, a president, a foreign secretary, fundamental rights—including the right to strike—that will be legally enforceable at European level, a common foreign and security policy, plans for a European army, the explicit primacy of European law, an increasing role in criminal law, control over immigration and asylum, expanded powers in transport and energy, and a common currency. That is no tidying-up exercise. It is at worst a collecting of pieces to construct them into something new and at best the beginning of the fulfilment of the dream of those who have always seen the European Union as the route to a politically united Europe.

Jim Marshall: I have some sympathy with the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, but he overstates his case when he represents an agenda presented by individuals, or even countries. He must understand that that is not how the constitutional power of the European Union has increased over the past 40 years. It happens when the Foreign Ministers and Heads of State start negotiating and horse-trading at the intergovernmental conferences. Some say, "We don't want this," and others say, "Well, we don't want that." In the end, they all give a bit. It is through that process of accretion that constitutional change takes place and the power of the European institutions increases.

Michael Ancram: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Our experience is that the change happens with a ratchet effect, and power rarely passes the other way. What concerns me—and it is why I said earlier that we have moved into a new phase—is that the construction of the constitution, which calls itself a constitution and has all the features of one, is now no longer in the hands of the Convention but in those of the IGC. That is where the bartering and the arguments will begin.
	I am concerned that the Government have already decided the outcome, because they have said firmly that they will not allow a referendum, whatever comes out of the IGC.

John Bercow: My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that a ratchet effect is at work. I put it to him that there is a close and compelling analogy between the process of European integration and the process of seduction, and the consequence in both cases is the same.

Michael Ancram: I need to give a little thought to the deeper meaning of those remarks before I venture a reply. However, we agree that we need to be aware of the dynamic of the situation. That is the reality that our partners in Europe understand, and I do not know why the Government do not have the honesty to admit it. Let us consider the totality of what is proposed. If that is not a fundamental change, I do not know what is. The saying goes that if you see an elephant on your doorstep, you should recognise that fact before you get trampled on. This constitution is an elephant and its capacity to trample on us is growing all the time.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The right hon. Gentleman displayed his prowess in the French language earlier, and I confess that I am not so competent in it. He will undoubtedly have been reading Le Monde, Le Figaro and other European journals, and they have praised the skills of the UK negotiating team, because it has won the best deal not only for Europe, but for Britain. If that had happened under a Conservative Government, the right hon. Gentleman would have been singing its praises to the highest heaven.

Michael Ancram: Indeed, I join Le Monde in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) for the work that they have done in the Convention, but I would not take French newspapers as a judge of whether British interests had been best served. In fact, I would be concerned if they thought that I had been acting in the best interests of Britain. Knowing the way in which French newspapers operate, I would sup with them with a very long spoon.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Michael Ancram: I always like to give way once to the hon. Gentleman, but I always know what question he will ask, and I shall give the same answer as I usually do.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am troubled that he admits that he always gives the same reply, whatever the question might be.

Michael Ancram: The hon. Gentleman always asks the same question.

Chris Bryant: I have a specific question that relates to the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the primacy of the Convention constitution over the constitutions of Europe. Does he accept that that applies only in certain competences, such as the regulation of state aid and competition, for which it is essential that the EU has primacy? Indeed, it has had such primacy for a long time, as originally agreed by a Conservative Government.

Michael Ancram: The Foreign Secretary, when he read out what was said this morning about constitutions, suggested that the Convention constitution would not have an effect over other constitutions. What the hon. Gentleman has just said disproves that. Words must mean something, and I shall read out the words in the constitution again. It states:
	"The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union and institutions in exercising competencies conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States."
	The Foreign Secretary was denying that primacy, but it is written into the constitution.

Jack Straw: How, in substance, does that differ from what has been in the treaties since the treaty of Rome and what is encapsulated in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972?

Michael Ancram: I am sorry to have to repeat myself, but we must look at the totality of what is being proposed.

Menzies Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: Before I give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I must make it clear that he and I know, from our experience as lawyers, about circumstantial evidence. We have told juries to look at the evidence as a whole because it might not amount to anything if each bit is looked at separately. We know that putting all the evidence together reveals what it can achieve. That is when one sees the reality.

Menzies Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that the words used must be given a plain meaning. In his view, what is the plain meaning to be ascribed to the phrase
	"in exercising competencies conferred upon it"?

Michael Ancram: The plain meaning is that in those competencies, which are very wide, there is a primacy over the laws of the member states. That is absolutely clear.

Jack Straw: I must press the right hon. Gentleman on that. Of course, he is right that the whole is often greater than the sum of the parts. We all know that, but I am making a specific point about the particular text that he has read out. What, in substance, does the new text produce by way of change, compared with the provision that has been in our law and in the treaties since section 2(2) of the 1972 Act came into force? That Act makes it equally clear that, in respect of legal instruments exercised at a Union level under EU competencies, Union law overrides the domestic law of Britain or any other member state. What is the difference?

Michael Ancram: My argument—which I shall continue with—is that it is important to look at the totality. If it is accepted that, where there are competencies, the constitution shall have primacy over the law of the member states, then we must look at what will happen with those competencies in the future. We must determine what the effect of that provision will be, and how much wider and broader those competencies will become. That is why we must look at the whole, as I said earlier, but I am prepared to look at some of the details.
	I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, who published a compelling analysis of the proposed constitution two days ago. Most of us will be grateful to him for having clarified some of the issues that have been the subject of rather muddy debate in this Chamber on previous occasions. He identified some areas of concern that I want to explore.
	The constitution endows the EU with a legal personality. For the first time, the EU becomes an autonomous entity in relation to the member states, with the ability to conclude international agreements by itself. We have a constitution that has primacy over the laws of member states.

Jack Straw: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the EU has a legal personality at the moment? That is what has enabled it to agree all sorts of treaties internationally.

Michael Ancram: It has done so in respect of trade, but—[Interruption.] This is where I think that the Foreign Secretary is trying to create a false debate. We are looking at what the constitution, if it ends up in the treaty, will confer on the EU, with a view to determining what its total effect will be. We are looking not at the small changes that it may make in some respects to the position as it was in the past, but at what the overall effect will be. I challenge the Foreign Secretary to say that the changes are not fundamental and significant in their totality. That is the argument that he seeks to make.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: I am going to make some progress, if I may.
	I turn now to the new powers. The list of EU powers is to be expanded. Formerly, only the customs union was an explicitly EU power, but now there are four. Amazingly, the conservation of marine biological resources is one of them. Where is the rationale for that? Under the EU, the common fisheries policy has been a disaster. Our seas have been emptied of fish and many of our fishing communities have been sent to the wall. Surely we should be working to retrieve our fishing waters from the EU, rather than entrenching them within it?
	I turn now to the new areas in which member states cannot legislate if the EU chooses to do so. These are the areas of shared competence—that is,
	"where the Union has not exercised or ceases to exercise its competence in the area of shared competence, the Member States may exercise theirs."
	If one turns that around to get away from the Euro-speak, that means that, where the EU has exercised its competence, the member states cannot. The shared competencies include justice and home affairs, transport, agriculture and fisheries, trans-European networks, energy, social policy, economic and social cohesion, the environment, and consumer protection. Those areas are now open-ended.

Gisela Stuart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: I will give way in a moment, but I want to deal with the co-ordination of economic and employment policies. Article II-3 states:
	"the Union shall have competence to promote and coordinate the economic and employment policies of the Member States."
	I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary—or perhaps even the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston—will be able to tell me what that means. As I understand it, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), when he was Minister for Europe, tried to have the clause about the co-ordination of economic and employment policies deleted. I wonder whether it is still a red line for the Government.

Gisela Stuart: Given the right hon. Gentleman's concerns about shared competencies, which will be defined clearly in part 3 of the constitution, does he welcome article II-2, which for the first time provides that, when the EU ceases to exercise its competence in respect of shared competencies, those competencies can be exercised by the nation states?

Michael Ancram: I welcome, as small crumbs from the table, any demonstration that there are movements back from the centre towards the nation states. However, I come back to the totality of what is being put forward. I hope that someone on the Government Front Bench will be able to answer my question about the co-ordination of economic and employment policies, as I believe that it is a key matter when it comes to looking at the totality of the proposals.

Eric Illsley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: I shall make a little progress and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
	I turn now to the harmonisation of criminal justice rules and procedures by qualified majority voting. One of the most far-reaching extensions of power is in judicial co-operation in criminal matters. The proposals are all subject to QMV, and provide for EU laws on admissibility of evidence and the rights of individuals and victims in criminal cases, as well as for sanctions in cross-border crimes. I hardly think that that is tidying up.
	There are also many areas where national vetoes will disappear. They range from asylum and immigration to culture. Henceforth, asylum and immigration will come under the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. The House must realise that, quite simply, we will no longer be able to decide our own asylum and immigration policy. That is what the provision means, and it is precisely what I fear in the totality of what is being produced.

Eric Illsley: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the totality of the constitution. Will he give an example of where that totality alters the competencies already listed in previous treaties? Will he give an example of where there will be a new power?

Michael Ancram: I am in the middle of giving some specific examples of where there has been an extension of competence by the EU, according to the details of the constitution. However, the totality of the proposals will change the nature of Europe, which will go from being a Europe of nations to a Europe that is a political entity.
	Let us look at what might be called the icing on the cake—the question of the European president and the European foreign minister. Our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, understandably, have their eyes on good retirement jobs. However, I must warn the Foreign Secretary that the German Foreign Minister has his eye on the European job, so the competition for the post might be great.
	The proposals epitomise the draft constitution's centralising tendencies. Having a president who will be Mr. Europe for two and a half years or five years is very different in respect of what I understand by the term "intergovernmentalism" from having a rotating presidency, either singly or in teams, supplied by the member states. The constitution departs from that sort of intergovernmentalism. It creates an identifiable figurehead, and that is its whole purpose. In doing that, it underlines the nature of the changes that are being made.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been generous about giving way, but I must tell him that, if I thought that the result of the proposal would be a centralisation of power within what we normally call Brussels—that is, the Commission—I would be against it. However, the reverse is the case. At present, the presidency is rotated between the 15 member states, of which there will soon be 25. That means that the Council of Ministers, whether at Heads of Government level or, more particularly, at a functional level, has less influence and power than it should have in comparison with the Commission, which is permanent in terms of the civil service and, effectively, of Commissioners. The result has been an attempt to rebalance the Union in favour of the council of nations, namely the European Council.

Michael Ancram: As I understand it, the president will not necessarily have to be a serving Head of Government.

Jack Straw: Yes

Michael Ancram: I am glad of that confirmation. The president will not, in that case, be part of the Council of Ministers, but a centralised figure at the top of the pile within the European Union. That is what I mean by saying that we should look at the totality of the proposals. There will be a foreign minister, and, as we read in the constitution, he will conduct the Union's common foreign and security policy. Those are not words describing devolution down to the nation states; they are words of centralising up. That shows the nature of the changes being made.

John Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the constitution says that those
	"member states which sit on the Security Council shall request that the Minister for Foreign Affairs be asked to present the Union's position",
	it means exactly what it says? That means effectively that we have lost our UN Security Council seat, because whenever he wants to, the minister for Europe will do that.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. To my mind, the constitution goes a stage further. The Union would take on itself the mantle of a sovereign state in that all the other members of the UN Security Council will be sovereign states.

Mark Hendrick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: I want to make some progress.

Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Michael Ancram: I shall, but it must be the last time, given the time.

Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend reject with contempt continual complaints that our powers are not being reduced? Will he consider page 4 of today's Evening Standard, on which a representative of the Foreign Office states that the Home Secretary's plans for transit camps for asylum seekers are being chucked out because the European Union will not allow them? Will my right hon. Friend make it abundantly clear that we have had non-stop interference with our right to decide things as a Parliament? Members of Parliament should be more concerned about the democratic rights of the people than about speaking nonsense and saying that Europe is not a problem. Our democracy has been undermined year after year, and Members of the House of Commons should be concerned about that.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a point at which I had hinted. The Government are voluntarily giving away control over asylum and immigration policy. I am delighted to hear that he reads English papers rather than the French papers mentioned earlier. His judgment on that is very sound.

Mark Hendrick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: May I make some progress?
	Underpinning the whole constitution is the charter of fundamental rights. The Prime Minister said in October 2000:
	"It has been agreed that [the charter] is a political direction which is not legally binding."
	Now, it is to be legally binding. That is the move that has taken place.
	On top of that, we now have the so-called escalator clauses, which allow areas currently subject to veto to be moved to qualified majority voting without any treaty change or reference to national parliaments. That is to be allowed in any area.

Jack Straw: indicated dissent.

Michael Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if he reads the constitution, he will find that that is so.
	The truth is that the Government's assurances on red lines are worthless. Most of what any federalist wants, including QMV in foreign affairs, can be obtained without any need for a new treaty. Indeed, the whole thrust of the constitution is towards ever-deeper integration. For instance, article 17, the so-called flexibility clause, will, with no consultation of national parliaments, allow the EU a virtually unfettered remit to expand its powers. That is the reality, on which I ask only that the Government come clean.
	The Government should also come clean on how much power the constitution transfers to the judges of the European Court of Justice. They will decide the impact of the charter of fundamental rights on European and national law. They will decide how the shared competencies will work. They will decide how far the EU will end up running our asylum and immigration policies. They will influence our criminal law. They will adjudicate on our energy supplies. Far from fulfilling the Laeken aspiration of bringing European Union institutions closer to EU citizens, the draft constitution succeeds only in taking power away from the people's elected representatives and giving it to distant and unelected judges.
	Those are the elements of a fundamentally changed Europe. If the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are sincere about defending British interests and preserving a Europe of nations, they must set down markers in Thessalonica to say that those elements are unacceptable in any forthcoming treaty, starting with the constitution itself, which the Prime Minister told us in Warsaw only three years ago was not needed.
	We want an effective, responsible and more flexible Europe that can genuinely meet the challenges of enlargement and of the 21st century. We want an EU that is accountable, democratic and connected to its people. We believe that that is best accomplished by working with the nation state, not by trying to supersede it. We need constructive reform that does more than enhance power structures at the top. We want a Europe that works for its people, not its elites. We want a Europe that takes real account of national variety and aspirations. We want a Europe that is genuinely accountable to the national parliaments from which its power springs. At the end, we want a Europe that must seek to work in partnership with the United States rather than in some fanciful rivalry to it.
	That is the Europe that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary should pursue at Thessalonica rather than turning a blind eye to the real meaning of the draft constitution. If they are not prepared to face up to that reality and to start defending British interests—if they are irrevocably set on marching down the road of the constitution towards the Prime Minister's aspiration for a superpower—they should at least have the courage of their convictions and seek the wholehearted consent of the British people.
	In the week in which the Government have announced referendums on regional assemblies in the north, and in the week in which an enormous opinion poll has shown that the British people want to have their say, the Government should announce that they will trust the people.
	We who sit across the Floor will, in debate after debate, almost certainly continue to disagree on what the draft constitution means. Why not ask the people? Promise a referendum, and let the people decide.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have now to announce the result of the Division deferred from a previous day. On the motion on race relations, the Ayes were 260, the Noes were 16, so the motion was agreed to.
	[The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]
	I must remind hon. Members that between 5 pm and 6.30 pm, Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Gisela Stuart: I was one of the House of Commons representatives on the Convention, but I was also our national parliamentary representative on the Praesidium and, since that was the drafting committee, I must probably plead more guilty than most of the final outcome. The draft is a good basis for the Government to work on, and I was delighted to hear the Foreign Secretary say so. It is a basis, not a framework within which only the Convention determines what should be debated further.
	The United Kingdom Government will have a difficult job in a number of areas. I want to pass on some observations on how the Convention worked.
	Some 28 countries were represented, including Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. When the Convention started, 10 member states did not know whether their accession treaties would be finalised. Yet those states were asked for an opinion and an input into the way in which EU institutions should be reformed, without their having had first-hand experience of them. The prevailing zeitgeist was that of a group of people who clearly had a federal vision of a United States of Europe, and who clearly thought that the Convention provided a great historic opportunity. I think that some of the quotes that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) used were from the last day, when people were covering their disappointment. For the committed federalists, the outcome was a deep disappointment. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned the ratcheting and the seduction effect. Giuliano Amato said, "We wanted a boy, but we ended up with a girl." That means that the committed federalists and integrationists are now the most disappointed group.
	The majority of members had to face up to the contradiction between wishing for deeper integration, which they saw not as a political project but one that allowed for effective working, and retaining national identity. To the new member states it was immensely important that national identity and elements of sovereignty were retained. In some cases, that is an irreconcilable contradiction, but we tried to find a way forward. For an effective union with 25 members, qualified majority voting is needed more often. Frankly, in practice—this is where the debate about the need for a national veto is disingenuous as regards the public—the national veto has an extremely bruising effect. It is used only rarely. With qualified majority voting, everyone has to negotiate an outcome on which they can agree.

John Redwood: Surely the veto is what guarantees that we will have a Europe of nations. The introduction of QMV in more areas implies continuous revolution with the passion to legislate more, grab more power and take more control. That is why we do not like it.

Gisela Stuart: I shall return to that matter.
	The constitution is a challenge for all political parties and for the United Kingdom. It is a challenge for the Conservatives, who really must move away from the Thatcherite "Nothing good has ever come from this" and from thinking that if something has the word "Europe" in it, it must be bad. That is not true. It is also a challenge for the Labour party, because we have become accustomed to beating the Conservatives over the head with Europe. We have gone to the other extreme and said that it is all good, instead of being a constructive critical friend who says that the overall project has benefited us and the whole of Europe, but that if we want that process to continue in the wake of enlargement, drastic reforms are needed in the way the Union works.
	From my experience in the Convention, the constitution is also a huge challenge for the Liberals. Andrew Duff said that the Liberal caucus collectively signed up to every word in the constitution and hoped that he would one day be able to return proudly to a United Kingdom where his fellow countrymen and women had shed their outdated nationalism and become true Europeans. Just because one thinks that one's party will never be in government, one should not want an ever-bigger kitchen in which to stir the broth—but I leave that to the Liberals.
	This matter is also a challenge for the United Kingdom. What I have found extraordinary about the past few months is that in the international sphere we see ourselves as a strong and significant country that has huge influence and, some would say, that still punches above its weight. However, when it comes to Europe, we behave like a small country. We have become extremely defensive, rather than acting as France and Germany do and simply being assertive—going in early in a combative way.
	I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary say that he wants to be greatly involved in the debate. I hope that that will encourage hon. Members on both sides of the House to engage much more constructively in the debate to make Europe work. That is the basic element.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady was going to answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).

Gisela Stuart: I shall come back to that.
	Three elements were important to me. One was accountability, and I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Devizes, who implied that power is conferred on the Union by national Parliaments; it is conferred by member states. The role of Parliaments—whether national Parliaments or the European Parliament—is to scrutinise the Executive. The scrutiny process will be strengthened, provided that Westminster lives up to the challenge. I am not yet convinced that hon. Members will use the extra powers conferred on them to challenge and scrutinise the Executive. I hope that they do, and that they will start to debate the Commission's annual programme in this Chamber so that they can no longer hide behind saying, "We knew nothing about this." The information is out there, and the new protocol will give the House the power to scrutinise and influence Ministers.
	The openness requirement when the Government legislate will make clearer what Ministers have done on our behalf. By the way, that does not mean that I think that the new legislative council is a good idea; new institutions should be created only when there is a need for them.

Jim Marshall: I am listening closely and with great interest to what my hon. Friend is saying about scrutiny by this Parliament. She has appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee on more than one occasion and has been subjected to close questioning about her activities. She will be aware that that Committee is one of the most effective in Europe. One of the big problems is getting debates on the Floor of the House. What she should urge is that the Government take greater account of the recommendations of the European Scrutiny Committee so that issues such as those she mentions get prime time and prime publicity on the Floor of the House.

Gisela Stuart: It is true that the United Kingdom's European Scrutiny Committee has been used as a model by a number of EU member countries looking at ways of taking the process forward.
	On unanimity and qualified majority voting, some areas go to the heart of the nation state in terms of constitutional arrangements. On future treaty ratifications, for example, we need to be completely protected. I could not agree to a system under which a constitutional treaty would be amended by any process other than ratification by every member state. In virtually all other areas, however, what is important to me is whether we have the ability to change policy domestically and how we best achieve that. On asylum and immigration, therefore, it was right to move to QMV because unanimity has meant that we have been unable to force some of the other states in the Union to live up to their responsibilities.
	On matters such as taxation and social security, however, I would insist on unanimity. The reason for that is best illustrated by one example: if I were asked what was the biggest achievement of the Labour Government who came into office in 1997, I would say that it was working tax credits. We changed the way in which benefits were delivered: no longer through benefit cheques but through the wage packet. The tools of taxation and social security are therefore vital for implementation of domestic policy. That is how I regard the trade-off between QMV and unanimity.
	Let me give one example of how unanimity can be totally destructive. I talked to someone today who had spent 10 years of his life trying to secure an amendment to the E111 form, which covers people for medical treatment when they go to Europe, so that it would also cover pregnant women—the definition covered only illness, and pregnancy is not an illness. The attempt failed for 10 years because the Greeks insisted that a further line be added to say that pregnant women would be covered only if they did not travel on purpose. In circumstances where everybody wants an amendment but one country suddenly becomes unreasonable, the veto is not a virtue. That is why we need to consider the issues one by one. In areas of taxation and security, we need the veto, but in others it is not in our interests.

Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Lady is making a fundamental point. Is not one of the problems with those who have become so opposed to the European Union that they are effectively advocating withdrawal that they have lost sight completely of the added value that working together brings, whether in dealing with asylum seekers or with the environment? She is right to say that we must find out where the value is added, and where retaining our independence is added value. If one cannot approach the debate in that fashion, one cannot realistically take part in it.

Gisela Stuart: Indeed. It could be argued that this area, rather than being one in which the Convention has failed or missed the trick, was not part of our mandate. We did not look at policy itself. Therefore, whatever the constitutional implications of the document that comes out at the end of the intergovernmental conference, if anyone were to ask how the life of a citizen has changed at this point, the answer would be that it had not done so at all, because all the policies are carrying on as they were. It could be argued that the exercise should have been approached as if one were a chief executive of EU plc, asking which areas of competency work well, which things we should not do, and where we need new institutions. We did not approach it in that way, however.

John Bercow: I want to challenge the hon. Lady's premise that it does not really matter which Executive, domestic or European, implements policy, but merely that there should be a chance to scrutinise it. I put it to her that there is an essential difference, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) touched in his intervention, which is that we should have the chance subsequently to change policy. There is a difference between this country choosing to legislate on social, cultural, environmental or economic matters, with the chance of change, and European institutions having the opportunity to do so, thereby removing from British parliamentarians the opportunity to secure change at a later date. That is the difference.

Gisela Stuart: The point that I was trying to make was that the job of parliamentarians is scrutiny of the Executive. The Westminster Parliament's job is to scrutinise our Government and the European Parliament's job is to scrutinise the Commission. We need to learn to work much more closely with our MEPs so that we take the strategic approach that best represents our country.
	It is not true that we shall lose the ability to implement nationally; we need to be much more clever about ensuring that we do at European level what is best done collectively.

Mark Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend find it curious that 10 nations are clamouring to join the EU and have recently held referendums on that, yet the Opposition are doing their best to make out that the EU is a waste of time? They have gone as far as they could without saying that we should withdraw, even though we know that that is their real agenda.

Gisela Stuart: Yes.

Michael Fabricant: That was a difficult one.

Gisela Stuart: It was a valid intervention. It is curious that part of this country seems to have forgotten that EU membership has been in our collective interest and has served us well for the past 30 years. We should have a constructive and open debate about how we can continue to make it work with a Union of 25.

Michael Ancram: I have been listening carefully to what the hon. Lady has been saying about the role of parliamentarians. On two occasions, she said that the job of Parliament is to scrutinise the Executive, but is it not also to authorise the Executive? The Executive take their power from the parliamentarians who are elected by the people. It is thus not quite right for her to criticise me for saying that power flows from national Parliaments. I repeat that they must be the fount of power, because their sovereignty stems from the people.

Gisela Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman is right. However, the distinctions that I have been trying to draw for the past 15 months relate to how the sovereignty and authority that come from the nation state, through its rightfully elected Government—from Westminster in our case—are represented in the Council of Ministers. I do not want to turn national Parliaments into European institutions; that is not Westminster's job. National parliamentarians are at one remove from Europe. I was delighted to hear the Foreign Secretary say that he wanted to strengthen the early warning mechanism. It has already been strengthened in one way by giving a right of referral to the courts, but I should prefer there to be a red card saying "No".
	The challenge is to Parliaments. An interparliamentary body—COSAC—already exists, almost unknown except by the small group of people who attend it. Over the 10 past years, COSAC has been unable to arrive at a common view. That is why the Convention document poses a huge challenge to national Parliaments.
	I want to make a few comments about where I would draw the line, because that is how I shall judge the outcome of the IGC and whether the integrity of member states will be protected so as to ensure that the EU is not more than a union of states. I am not hung up about whether things are described as having a Community basis. Having spent the first 18 years of my life in a federal state, I realise that sometimes "federal" can mean decentralised.
	In key institutional elements, the minority must not be overruled by the majority, so treaty ratification must be carried out by all member states. Similarly, the voluntary withdrawal clause in the document is a statement of the fact that a member may withdraw. If a constitution sets out that one can join a body, there must, logically, be provision for withdrawal. That is where we should focus our minds.
	Opposition Members keep saying that we are going down a one-way street or that we are in a prison from which we cannot escape. I challenge them to make their case and to spell out the practical consequences of their view. They should not merely engage in scaremongering, but should really think things through. At some stage, I should like them to make the case that it would be in the United Kingdom's interest—

Teddy Taylor: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but, under article 57, there is no right for member states simply to withdraw if they want to. It is all spelt out on page 44, which says that they can discuss proposals with the Commission, but the proposals must be approved by a majority of the Council, then by the European Parliament. So the idea that that measure gives anyone the right to walk out of the European Union is, sadly, not true. It would be much better to have a voluntary organisation from which people could withdraw. Article 57 does not provide that right at all.

Gisela Stuart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it does. It must be recognised that there is a Union interest if a member were to withdraw. Let us think through the political consequences if France, for example, decided to withdraw. There is a proper process. There is a time limit by which the European Council would have to take note of such a decision, but the political reality is that, for the first time, we have created a proper legal basis for that process. By the way, withdrawal was also possible before then; one country has withdrawn.

Teddy Taylor: Greenland.

Gisela Stuart: That was done under the Vienna convention, and it is much more proper, in my view, for the constitution to spell out a political process.
	On the efficiency of the Union, the document proposes a smaller, much more effective Commission, and I had hoped that even Opposition Members would welcome that. I wish that the European Parliament would ask for the right to censor individual commissioners, as that would be the proper way to hold them to account. It gives a clearer delineation of responsibilities and a clearer way to take decisions.
	I do not for the life of me understand why the Opposition oppose the President of the European Council. There is something ambiguous about the language—I would have preferred to use the phrase "Chair of the European Council"—but if ever a new institutional structure strengthened the representation of the member states it is that very function. The Commission is elected for five years and has a permanent composition. The European Council is elected for five years and has a permanent composition.
	The third part of the institutional triangle, which has to have equal sides, will be the 25 representatives, and they will have general elections, so the membership will change. However, the presidency changes every six months and, from my experience of three presidencies and chairing the group of national parliamentarians, I do not think that the rotating presidency is a terribly good idea. Even in those 15 months, we experienced three different lots of people in the chair. So the proposed process will be hugely strengthening.

Denzil Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the rotating presidency merely demonstrated that the Council of Ministers was not a central institution of the EU, like the Parliament, the European Courts and the Commission? That is why there was a rotating presidency. If we move away from that, we shall turn the Council of Ministers from an institution that represented member states into a kind of semi-centralised institution of the EU. That is the difference.

Gisela Stuart: Yes, but that ultimately strengthens the voice of the nation states. [Hon. Members: "No, it does not."] Well, time will tell who is right. From all that I have seen, the proposal represents a strengthening of the member states, and I am encouraged by the fact that the federalists opposed it most vigorously.

Ian Davidson: Does my hon. Friend accept that the very term, "president", which is in popular usage, implies considerable powers, position, an institution, an establishment and all the rest of it, and that that has great dangers? Would it not be better to consider the traditional Scottish term, "convenor", as it would more accurately convey the concept of convening meetings, rather than ruling?

Gisela Stuart: Language is a problem. When we first started to discuss the term "president", a Dutch colleague came up to me and said, "When you talk about a president, do you mean the French kind or the German kind?" In French, there is only one word and no distinction can be made between a president and a chairman, so I would have preferred the term, "Chair" to be used. I have no idea how the term "convenor" would translate into the 20-odd languages—hence the job description.
	I wish to consider briefly the job that the Government have on their hands as they go into the intergovernmental conference. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary has not heeded the suggestion, made by the president of the Convention, that the Convention itself should identify the areas that are as yet unclear or undecided. The Government say that there is a working basis.
	We should not make compromises that will not produce a more efficient Union. I hope that the British Government will vigorously say no to several measures. I hope that article I-24.4—the passerelle clause that was mentioned—which would allow qualified majority voting to be introduced via the European Council, will be removed and that the measure on the legislative council will be removed. I also hope that the text will be improved.
	My final point relates to the completely incomprehensible call for a referendum at this stage. Calls for a referendum started even before the ink on the first draft was dry. If this were a football match, we would be moving into injury time, because if the Heads of Government reach agreement on Friday, the Convention will return to complete the draft. The draft will then go to the intergovernmental conference. If the Opposition intend to continue on their course, will the right hon. Member for Devizes clarify a point? Whenever there are calls for a referendum, we owe it to the people whom we ask to cast their votes to spell out the clear consequences of their answer. I presume that a yes vote would indicate approval, but would a no vote mean that Opposition Members would suggest that we withdraw from the Union?

Michael Ancram: May I clear that up by citing no better person than Valéry Giscard d'Estaing—the person who has presided over the Convention? He was asked on "Breakfast with Frost" what would happen if a member country failed to ratify the treaty, which would happen if there were a negative vote in a referendum, and he replied that there would be no treaty.

Gisela Stuart: Do I take it that the new Conservative party policy is that future European Union treaties such as Maastricht and Amsterdam should always be put to a referendum? Has the party's policy changed?

John Bercow: My answer to that question would be yes. I think that people value a bit of candour and straightforwardness on such matters, so I put it to the hon. Lady that the argument sometimes made—albeit not by her on this occasion—that we have no case because there was a not a referendum on the Maastricht treaty is not compelling. There should have been a referendum on Maastricht—I was not in the House to do anything about that—there should have been a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty and there should be a referendum on this treaty. Two wrongs do not make a right. Let us get it right this time.

Gisela Stuart: I am glad that we have had an indication of what the future leader of the Conservative party thinks about treaty ratification.
	We have a good document, although it is not perfect. There are aspects to which the British object and aspects to which several other countries object. Many countries have hidden behind British objections for the past 15 or 20 years because it was convenient to do so. The French will find something in the document to criticise, as will the Spanish, the Danes and the Scandinavians. The document will be improved over the next six months through the IGC. I look forward to the worthy document being improved even further by the Government's work.

Menzies Campbell: No one can complain about a lack of attention to European affairs in our Parliament during past weeks. We have debated such issues almost weekly. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary promised an even more sophisticated system of consultation when he opened the debate, which the whole House should warmly welcome. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned candour, and it is only right for such matters to be the subject of extensive discussion. Some might say that we need even more canvassing of the issues because a recent opinion poll showed that 7 per cent. of the British people think that the United States is a member of the European Union. Perhaps there is a lot to do.
	When dealing with treaties, it is important not to read and extract only parts of them for the purpose of an argument. I think that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—he has apologised for not being in the Chamber as he has another pressing obligation—was guilty of doing that to an extent.
	If we are concerned about the nature of the treaty, surely it is right to look at the definition and objectives of the Union set out in paragraph 1 of article I-1. In that, we read:
	"Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future, this Constitution establishes the European Union, on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common."
	Again, at paragraph 5 of article I-3, at the end of a list of objectives, we read:
	"These objectives shall be pursued by appropriate means, depending on the extent to which the relevant competences are attributed to the Union in this Constitution."
	So the principle is made clear at the outset of the document that the Union's capacity to operate depends on the extent to which individual member states are willing to confer power on it. It is important to have that in mind.

John Redwood: Absolute rubbish.

Menzies Campbell: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has read the treaty from end to end.
	On Union competences, article I-9 on fundamental principles states:
	"The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality . . . Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Constitution to attain the objectives set out in the Constitution. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Constitution remain with the Member States."
	The scheme that the constitution sets out and embraces is clearly set out in the document itself. In my respective judgment, it is a long way different from the description attributed to it by the right hon. Member for Devizes.

John Redwood: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking complete rubbish. If he reads article I-12 on exclusive competence and article I-13 on areas of shared competence, he will see that they set out practically everything that Governments do. They cover monetary policy, commercial policy, customs union, marine biological resources, the internal market, freedom, security and justice, agriculture and fisheries, transport and trans-European networks, energy, social policy, economic and social cohesion, environment, consumer protection, common safety and, of course, common foreign and defence policy. It is a complete Government. They have got the lot.

Menzies Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman has fallen into the trap that I tried to exhort and encourage people to avoid. He can only read that part of the constitution against the terms of those parts that I outlined. They make it clear that the scheme is one in which individual member states confer competences. The extent to which those are exercised, no matter what the list may say, depends on the extent to which the states have given those responsibilities to the Union. If the right hon. Gentleman does not think that that is the case, the European Court of Justice should be his first stop if the constitution is applied. I make him a modest wager that if he were to endeavour to prevent the exercise of a competence that had not been conferred from the list that he read out, he would be on something pretty close to a banker in making an application to the Court.
	It is also important to read all the contents of the provision in relation to qualified majority, to which the right hon. Member for Devizes referred. Qualified majority is mentioned in article I-24. He said that the question of qualified majority is beyond the power of individual nation states in some respects. However, he forbore to read paragraph 4 of that article, which says:
	"Where the Constitution provides . . . for laws and framework laws to be adopted by the Council according to a special legislative procedure, the European Council can adopt, on its own initiative and by unanimity, after a period of consideration of six months, a decision allowing for the adoption of such laws or framework laws according to the ordinary legislative procedure."
	It is impossible to move to majority voting unless there is unanimous agreement for that proposal. That is a lock on the sort of progress that the right hon. Gentleman found so offensive.
	It is inevitable in advance of this Council that the issue of the Convention should form such a substantial part of our pre-Council debate. I have, by good fortune, spent a day this week in Berlin and a day in Paris, meeting officials and politicians. If I may report back, I can tell the House that there is mild and rather polite surprise at the febrile nature of the debate in the United Kingdom. One comes away from both those capitals with the sense that people there wonder what all the fuss is about. They are concerned that the debate in which we are taking part is so different from the one that is of consequence for them.
	The referendum was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Devizes and by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). Like others, I pay tribute to her and those who participated on behalf of both Houses of Parliament in the Convention procedure. I have no doubt that it was long and arduous, and that they all conducted themselves with great distinction, even though one does not necessarily agree with all their views or with all the views advanced by Mr. Andrew Duff.
	I may be repeating some of the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), who spoke last week, but let me begin on the subject of a referendum by saying that the Liberal Democrats under the leadership of Mr. Ashdown, as he then was, were the first to call for a referendum on the issue of the single currency. They did so because that is not just an economic decision, but a political and constitutional decision as well.
	There was an exchange a moment or two ago about the need for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. There was an opportunity for such a referendum. On 21 April 1993 Mr. Bryan Gould, then a Labour Member of Parliament, introduced new clause 49, in which he sought to amend the commencement provisions of the relevant Act of Parliament to allow for a referendum on the treaty. The vote in favour was 124 and the vote against was 363. I can tell the hon. Member for Buckingham, who raised the issue, that I and most of my colleagues were in the Lobby asking for a referendum. One or two notable Conservative rebels, some of whom have risen to extremely high positions in the Conservative party, joined us, but for the most part, the Conservative party voted against.
	On 13 February 1995—

Kelvin Hopkins: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: May I finish the point?
	On 13 February 1995 there was a Liberal Democrat Opposition day on the motion
	"That this House believes that the popular assent of the people of the United Kingdom should be sought through a referendum before any substantial alteration of the present constitutional settlement between the European Union and its member states."
	I fancy that if the hon. Member for Buckingham had been in the House on that occasion, he would have voted with us. If he had, he would have voted on the winning side. The motion was carried by 43 votes to three. The Minister who was winding up for the then Conservative Government said to the House as he came to the end of his speech at column763:
	"For the reasons I have set out, we do not consider that it is worth voting on the motion. It has been brought forward for short-term party political gain, and I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to abstain."—[Official Report, 13 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 763.]
	I suppose that demonstrates that if one is in this place long enough, one sees everything.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, but his historical musings do not greatly advance matters. I was surprised by his reference to subsidiarity and proportionality, in respect of which the Convention offers very little by way of improvement. Is he not aware that the relevant protocol of the treaty of Amsterdam specifically states:
	"The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and the objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance; it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national and Community law, and it should take into account Article F (4) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which 'the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies'."?
	No improvement on that. Game, set and match.

Menzies Campbell: No doubt the hon. Gentleman can recite the speech of Laurence Olivier in "Richard II" too. If his argument is that there has been insufficient application of the principle of subsidiarity—Mr. John Major never received proper credit for the issue, which he adopted and pressed very hard—I say yes to that. I shall happily sign up with him and others who want to ensure that subsidiarity is much better pressed in the activities of the European Union. All that I wished to say by referring to the treaty is that subsidiarity is expressly set out. Perhaps he and I can agree later on the best methods of ensuring that that principle is applied.
	The important point—to some extent, this reflects what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said a moment ago—is that the Convention has not quite completed its work. The forthcoming IGC has not yet started, and I think that there are some very optimistic prognoses as to how long it may take. I suspect that it may take rather longer than expected. With regard to 1 May, the date of accession for the new countries, I suspect that there may have to be a postponement. That would be extremely unfortunate. The issues, some of which have already been canvassed, have not yet been fully resolved.
	In the course of the IGC, the United Kingdom will have a veto. The House will also have a veto. When what the Government agree to comes back here, the House will have the opportunity for line-by-line scrutiny, as an issue of such importance will undoubtedly have to be dealt with on the Floor of the House. It will be subject to the veto not only of the United Kingdom, but of all the new members. It is wrong to assume the acquiescence of all the new members to the proposals. As has been said, some of them, having broken out of the hegemony of the Soviet Union and enjoyed freedom for 10 or 12 years, will be very reluctant to accede or give their imprimatur to anything that they understand to have the effect of being an unnecessary limit on that freedom.

Denzil Davies: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to line-by-line scrutiny. That sounds wonderful, but in respect of most previous treaties, we have considered only Bills setting out areas where they change domestic law. We are not allowed to debate such treaties line by line.

Menzies Campbell: I have participated in some of those debates along with the right hon. Gentleman, and I have never seen any inhibition preventing him and others, such as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), from raising issues that they thought relevant. He is correct to say that we scrutinise the Bill that is before the House, but as I understand it, that has never operated as a restriction on those who wish to raise other matters.

Eric Illsley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about countries escaping from the hegemony of the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union. When members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs visited the applicant countries, that was always put to them as a major issue. Obviously, they do not want to leave that behind to enter another constrictive structure.

Menzies Campbell: I am grateful for that corroboration.

Kelvin Hopkins: I wondered whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman might want to welcome the attitude of the sinners who repenteth in the Conservative party in relation to referendums.

Menzies Campbell: One should always welcome repenting sinners, particularly if they want to adopt one's own Gospel.
	If the constitution amounts to a codification of existing treaties, contains administrative changes to accommodate the increased membership of the European Union, is coupled with a greater definition of existing powers under treaties that have already been signed, is more definitive of the respective roles of the institutions of the Union and the individual member states and embraces the principle of subsidiarity, I would have thought that it should frighten no one. However, if the proposals that the Government eventually place before the House contain any major shifts of control and any transfer of significant new powers from member states to European institutions or alteration of the existing balance between the member states and those institutions—the test was clearly set out last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale—the Government would have an obligation to consider the constitutional implications for the United Kingdom and, in my judgment, to put those matters before the people of the United Kingdom in a referendum. If this is truly "tidying up", the tests that I have set out will not be met. We shall have to make a judgment when the process has been completed and not before, and those who judge wrongly may well have an electoral price to pay.
	I think it is equally wrong to rule out a referendum in all circumstances and to insist on a referendum before the final form of the proposals is known. Although the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is not present, I repeat my support for the view that he has expressed on many occasions—unsuccessfully so far—that it is time the Government published a White Paper setting out their proposals for Britain's role in the European Union. The Convention, and the procedures that will follow, provide a sound basis for such a White Paper. If we are indeed to have a wide-ranging debate in which those in all parts of the House, and the public, will be properly involved, where better to start than with a clear and unambiguous statement by the Government of the policies that they wish to pursue?
	I for one remain firmly wedded to the view that foreign and defence policy should remain intergovernmental. I think that ultimate responsibility for both should rest with national Governments and Parliaments. On 18 March, the House won for itself something of a right to endorse military action. Some might argue that that was a special case—a one-off—but it strikes me as inconceivable that, in the event of a major deployment of British forces abroad in the future, we would not have a similar debate on a similar motion. Now that we have won that right against the exercise of the royal prerogative, I for one am very reluctant to give it up. I have always believed that such decisions should rest with Parliament rather than with the Prime Minister. That, I think, is yet another argument to buttress the view that foreign and defence policy should remain the responsibility of Governments and Parliaments.
	The same applies to taxation. I am not one of those who get too exercised about the role of the Lord Chancellor and the sweeping away of 1,400 years of history, but taxation and representation lie at the centre of our reason for being here. The battle between Parliament and the monarch was about those twin issues. For my part, I do not think that the House should give up that responsibility either.
	The common agricultural policy is a continuing source of frustration for both friends and foes of the European Union. I think that it is enough to state the figures. Half the European Union's budget—Euro43 billion, or £30 billion—is devoted to the CAP. It has enormous consequences for the third world, and may have significant consequences for our position at the World Trade Organisation talks that will take place in Cancun in September.
	Some of the accession countries will be licking their lips at the prospect of access to the CAP, but the real risk is that the bank may be bust. The efforts that are currently being made therefore strike me as extremely significant. I hope that the Government will use all their political influence and power to persuade countries such as France and Germany that CAP reform is fundamental to the European Union's financial position, that it has important implications for our world trade position, and that we have a moral obligation owing to the CAP's continuing consequences for the third world.

Denis MacShane: I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Could he have a word with his fellow Liberals in parties around Europe to get them to support that policy?

Menzies Campbell: Most certainly. I am afraid that such issues are decided on a national, rather than a party political basis, but that does not make them any less urgent. If the Minister wants to sign me up, among others, to go to make that case to parties elsewhere in Europe, I shall be happy to do so, for the reasons that I indicated.
	Another point is worth making in relation to the CAP. At the moment, as the German Government are the largest net contributor to the European Union, Germany is essentially the paymaster for the CAP. Those arrangements have to be reviewed in 2007. If I may say so, the German economy will have to be in a somewhat healthier condition than it is now if it is to be able to continue that kind of financial commitment to the CAP, but I rather fancy that it will not be. That may provide a break in the argument that will allow for reform.
	I said previously that I was of the view that foreign and security policy must remain intergovernmental. However, that does not undermine the desirability of seeking common positions. In my judgment, the amalgamation of the jobs that are being carried out by Javier Solana and Chris Patten makes considerable sense. The person who occupies that role should be answerable to the Council. However, there are questions of funding that I hope can be resolved to ensure that the individual, whoever he or she may be, will not find himself or herself being restricted in their activities by virtue of the fact that financial control and responsibility lie elsewhere. Although it makes sense for Javier Solana to produce a strategic doctrine, we should bear in mind that, as the Foreign Secretary hinted, if Europe is serious about its own security there will have to be some serious thinking about levels of defence spending. Some countries' contributions are, if not negligible, at least very insignificant by comparison with some of the political aspirations that they are willing to articulate.
	In the course of the past couple of days, a common position has been adopted on weapons of mass destruction, and there will be a real opportunity to see the extent to which that is effective when we deal with the issue of Iran. The Foreign Secretary mentioned Iraq, but not the Iranian problem. Perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify the extent to which those issues are currently under consideration. I am in no doubt that a new security bargain has to be struck between the United States and Europe—one that is more of a partnership than a competition. The European Union may have a significant role to play in the forging of that bargain.
	I understand that Mr. Putin is to visit. I hope that the Prime Minister will take the opportunity to say that the relationship between Russia and the European Union will to a large extent depend upon Russia's attitude towards Chechnya. The Prime Minister confirmed during Question Time that he would raise that issue directly. There will be relief and gratitude throughout the whole House that that is now the position, although it may have been slightly different in Westminster Hall earlier today.
	On the single currency, I imagine that both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are likely to be asked about that by other EU members. I am one of those who believe unashamedly that it would be in Britain's interest to join. I thought that the Chancellor was at his most persuasive and eloquent when he argued the principle of the single currency from the Dispatch Box some 10 days ago. However, it is important not only to embrace the principle, but to work towards achieving the convergence that the five tests set out. If the Government still take the view that they wish the United Kingdom to be truly at the heart of Europe, they should recognise that we will truly be at the heart of Europe and truly able to exercise political influence only when we have joined the single currency. We will then find at Councils such as the one that is due to take place in the next couple of days that we are rather more influential than we appear to be at present.

Jim Marshall: I have given you a commitment, Madam Deputy Speaker, to try to abide by the 10-minute rule that applies between 5 pm and 6.30 pm. I understand that, after me, you intend to call someone who has been a member of the Convention and may wish to take longer than 10 minutes. I accept a self-imposed restriction.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) mentioned his discussions with politicians in Berlin and Paris and said that they found it difficult to understand the argument in the United Kingdom. With the greatest humility and respect, that is hardly surprising because their long-term agenda is totally different from that of the UK Government. The German and French Governments unashamedly pursue a federalist agenda, whereas the UK Government tell us that they have succeeded in the past few weeks in eliminating all references to "federal" from the Convention's articles. The lack of understanding is inevitable because those countries do not share the UK's aspirations.
	However, I echo the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point about defence and security and taxation. Those matters should be ring-fenced, remain intergovernmental and out of the European Commission's clutches. I should love to continue the political banter, but perhaps I should get down to the subject under consideration.
	The Convention may nearly have finished its work and I believe that most of us could agree with 90 per cent. of its proposals, but disagreement will continue on the remaining 10 per cent. Those disagreements will resurface with a vengeance in the IGC round that starts later in the year.
	Although the Opposition do not accept it, the Government may be correct in their assertion that the Convention's proposals do not involve a further major constitutional shift in power from national Parliaments to the European Union. However, from my experience, the evidence of the past 40 years points to an inexorable drift in power to EU institutions. In the medium term, I suspect that the same is likely to occur with the Convention proposals.
	I accept the Foreign Secretary's comments that the UK will oppose attempts gradually to eradicate national vetoes and make qualified majority voting the norm for EU policy making; the introduction of majority voting on taxation matters; moves to create a mutual European defence policy that could undermine NATO, and attempts to harmonise criminal law. I also accept that the UK Government will seek firm guarantees that the charter of fundamental rights will not override national law and create new rights.
	I sincerely hope that the Government succeed in achieving those objectives. However, we all know—I am sure that that applies to the Minister, with his involvement in negotiations around Europe in the past few months—that, in the negotiations and horse-trading at the IGC, the Government may have to concede some of their aims to obtain concessions on other matters. I am not therefore as sanguine as the Foreign Secretary appears to be about the Government's long-term ability to achieve their objective.
	I should like to be a little more welcoming of at least two of the proposals. I welcome the proposal that the Council must in future sit in public when legislating. This should at least ensure that the situation will no longer arise in which a Minister comes out of the Council saying that he has voted in a particular way when we all know that he has voted in a completely different way, contrary to his own country's public position. The Council's sitting in public when legislating should remove the possibility of that happening.
	I also welcome the proposal to invoke national Parliaments in the EU decision-making process at the very earliest stage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, the Commission will have to send each national Parliament every one of its proposals, explaining the reasons for Europe-wide action and what the likely implications will be. Parliaments will have six weeks to examine the texts, and, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, if one third of the Parliaments oppose a proposal, the matter will have to be reviewed, or given the so-called yellow card. I only hope that we can succeed in establishing the possibility of turning the yellow card into a red one, because it is only through the ability to issue a red card that we can really begin to hold the Commission to account. Parliaments throughout the 25 member states will, however, have to ensure that their security procedures are adequate to make the new system work properly. We all have a vested interest in ensuring that all the national Parliaments are able to cope with that new proposal.
	On security and defence, I would like to underline everything that was said by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. The United Kingdom must continue to support the intergovernmental structure of the common foreign and security policy. I have been a delegate from the House to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union for the past 10 years, and I have witnessed the increasing pressure for defence Europe from many continental politicians. I accept that the European Union should be able to undertake the so-called Petersberg tasks when NATO does not wish to be involved, but the European security objectives must be complementary to, not in competition with, those of NATO. The primary security architecture of Europe must remain NATO, and we must resist moves to make the European Union a rival military power to the United States. I believe that we shall be assisted in that objective by the expansion of the European Union in 2004, and I understand that the Foreign Secretary believes that as well.
	I agree with what the Foreign Secretary said about Turkey, which has been a staunch ally of ours in NATO over the past 50 years. During the past 18 months, it has introduced a raft of new legislation to protect human rights there. Now is the time for Turkey to be given a firm guarantee that it will be admitted to the European Union. That would be good for Turkey, and for the reputation of the European Union in the Islamic world, which would then see that the European Union was not just a Christian club.

David Heathcoat-Amory: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). I agreed with much of what he said, and especially his closing comments on Turkey, which I think has earned its right to be a European country. It is a beacon in the Muslim world, showing that there can be a secular Muslim state.
	My time on the Convention is drawing to an end, and I would like to thank the House authorities and the Clerks for the help that they have given the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and me over the past 15 months in our work in Brussels.
	The Convention was not given a specific brief to draw up a constitution for Europe, although that was mentioned as a possibility. It was given the primary task of creating a more democratic, simpler Europe, closer to its citizens, and I judge the draft constitution on whether it does that. In my opinion it has failed, and that is why I did not sign it and instead, along with a few other colleagues on the Convention, submitted a minority report, which we believe more truly discharges that obligation. The constitution will now go to an intergovernmental conference, and we all accept that it can and will be further amended. However, I attended a previous IGC for an earlier enlargement, and it is striking how the parameters are set fairly early. One may win a tactical victory, but the strategic movement is already set in another direction.
	The outcome of the Convention is not simply a starting point. It has produced a draft that will undoubtedly form the central part of what is before the IGC, and I would be very surprised if the eventual outcome differs markedly in its structure and architecture from the original—unless, of course, the Government are planning a much bigger revolt than has been suggested today. It could be that they will insist on their previous positions being respected. We were always told that they intended to fight to retain the intergovernmental pillars set up at Maastricht and guarded by all Governments since then.
	The Prime Minister also promised that the EU charter of fundamental rights would not be legally binding, but now it is, as it forms the second part of the constitution and is therefore fully legally binding under the European Court of Justice. The various assurances and conditions surrounding it are wholly inadequate to prevent its having a profound and continuing effect on our own legal system. The Government are paying a price for having been far too conciliatory during the whole of the first year of the Convention. Most of what they do not want is already in the draft constitution, and it will now be difficult ever to get it out.
	The Foreign Secretary gave us some examples of his red lines. There have been some very late additions, including the so-called passerelle clause, or bridging clause, which will allow the European Council, by unanimity, to move everything that remains from veto to majority voting. That is wholly unacceptable—certainly to this House—because it would allow the constitution to be amended from within, without any reference to national Parliaments or people. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester, South. I was rather surprised that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) approved of it, because if he is a champion, as he should be, of the rights of member states to amend the constitution in future, he should not allow it all to be done in-house by the European Council, without any further reference back to the Parliaments that sent their representatives there.
	It is beyond doubt that the foolish remarks of the new Leader of the House should now be quietly dropped. It is absurd to call this whole exercise, which we have been involved in for the past 15 months, simply an exercise in tidying up the treaties. That was always a preposterous claim—and frankly, a dishonest one. I was pleased, therefore, that the Foreign Secretary did not mention it. I think that he is now moving to a slightly different position, which concedes that these issues are extremely important—indeed, I believe them to be of giant constitutional significance. However, he is still saying that nevertheless, we can all leave it to the Government—but I am not prepared to do that. When constitutional changes are to be made, they must be decided by a referendum of the people.
	All the existing treaties will be completely repealed, which has never happened before. The constitution—and we note that this is not being contested by the Government or any other member state—will found a new Union with a unified structure, without the intergovernmental pillars. It will have its own legal personality, which goes way beyond the existing treaties. The European community has a legal personality already, but the Union does not. Criminal justice, policing, foreign policy, security and defence—all that is now to be rolled into a single legal structure with its own legal personality.
	The powers given to the new Union go way beyond anything written in existing treaties. For example, the Union will have the exclusive right—or "competence" as it is called in Euro-speak—to sign international agreements on behalf of member states. That includes not just international matters, but anything at all that affects domestic policy. That is made perfectly clear in article I-12. One will look in vain in existing treaties to find anything as extensive and far-reaching as that, and those international agreements will be made, of course, by qualified majority voting.
	We have already had some debate about shared competences. Incidentally, words such as "shared competence" do not make documents any more user-friendly for the people who have to read them. Nor has the instruction to simplify really been discharged. The draft treaty before us runs to 224 pages. Yet in an article in The Economist last year, the Foreign Secretary said that he would insist that the final constitution could be fitted into his pocket. Good luck to him in the IGC, but he is leaving it awfully late. Certainly the current draft is bafflingly complex, even to the specialist reader.
	I shall return to the issue of shared powers or competences. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, virtually everything is brought within the new Union. The list of shared competences cover just about everything that the House deals with when it legislates. Another new dimension is the fact that if the Union decides to legislate in a particular area, the member states are forbidden to do so. That seems a funny definition of "sharing" to me.
	The economy is another important issue. The Foreign Secretary did not deal with the matter; perhaps he has given in. In any case, the Union is to be given a pretty awesome new power. Under article I-14:
	"The Union shall adopt measures to ensure coordination of the economic policies of the Member States".
	That is not a power, but an injunction or an instruction about what measures "shall" be taken to "ensure" co-ordination. Very late in the Convention's life, employment measures were added, so we are talking about compulsory co-ordination of economic and employment policies right across the Union. It is difficult to understand how that means control of anything less than overall tax rates, public expenditure rates, interest rates—the whole lot. That is a massive transfer of power—or "competence" —from member states—or this House—to the new Union.
	That is not simply "tidying up". It is worse. It completely contradicts what the Chancellor said in his statement, when he decided to shelve our membership of the euro. He said that we needed more flexibility to make it work in the future. That is another habit that the Government have of talking about the world economy, with its dynamism and flexibility, as a model for us. They suggest that it would make our own economy, and that of the eurozone, work better. However, at the same time the Government are converging our economy with the European Union model, characterised—unfortunately—by low growth, inflexibility, over-taxation, over-regulation and tragically high unemployment. That is no longer a game, because the European constitution, as drafted, will enshrine the European Union model for all time. We will not have the option ever again. We will have to converge, finally and completely, with a model that has delivered—in Germany alone—nearly 5 million people out of work.

John Redwood: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Indeed, when a country such as Ireland rightly decides on a lower tax policy that attracts a lot of business and creates jobs—and then receives more tax revenue on lower rates of taxation—the European Union says it is anti-competitive and they must stop it. That is just the sort of thing that this wide-ranging shared competence—or massive power—will allow the EU to do, to stop people succeeding.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend is right. Harmonisation is always upwards. Taxes and regulations always rise to the higher level. I repeat my point that that is not just a power being granted under the constitution, but an instruction. It will definitely happen, unless that provision is removed. I was surprised that the Foreign Secretary did not even mention that point. Still less did he argue against it.

John Bercow: The cession of sovereignty to which my right hon. Friend refers is the flipside of the coin of the cession of sovereignty in relation to monetary policy. Does he agree that it was foolish of the Foreign Secretary to cite Romano Prodi, for it was he who is clearly on record as saying that the euro can lead only to closer and closer integration of countries' economic policy. He went on, ominously and rather impertinently, to add that that demands that member states give up more sovereignty. We cannot say that we were not warned.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. It was openly conceded on the continent among politicians at the Convention that that is the case. If we are to have a European state with its own currency, we need centralised economic management, including the management of taxes. The draft already contains provision for the erosion of the unanimity principle on taxation. That is one of the Government's red lines, but they will have to fight on many fronts. They need to take all the stuff about majority voting out before they start, and I know from bitter experience that international negotiation is not a one-way street. The bargaining process in the European Union is usually that one representative agrees to do something that is bad for his country, if the other also agrees to do something that is bad for his country. Everybody has to give way on something. The idea that we will be able to take everything within the red lines out, without having to accept anything in return, is fantastically innocent and naive.
	Substantial areas of policy that must at present be decided under the unanimity process will be transferred to qualified majority voting. Giscard d'Estaing, the president of the Convention, last week mentioned 50 such areas. I have been able to count only just over 30, but I defer to his superior knowledge. The Foreign Secretary was asked early in the debate what the new areas of competence were, and I can add the example of energy, which has come from nowhere. There is presently no treaty base for EU legislation or action on energy policy in the existing treaties, but it now appears in the draft constitution. The power given will be to ensure the security of energy supply. I know from my earlier work as a junior Energy Minister that the Commission has been itching to gain some measure of control over North sea oil and gas, as a strategic reservoir in times of oil embargo or international disruption. That will give the Commission the ability to do that by majority voting. Clearly, that could override our own concerns.

Gisela Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the debate about the move to QMV. The 50 areas identified by Giscard d'Estaing include matters such as court appointments. However, we must be clear that energy has been a shared competence, which the Commission adopted on the basis of article 308. As I understand it, the UK would prefer to put the matter on a proper footing in a treaty, rather then relying on that rather extensive article.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I hate to disagree with the hon. Lady—whom I sometimes think of as my hon. Friend. We used to march together, on occasions, in our attempts to defend the interests of this House. However, on this matter I must disagree with her. I would rather have energy dealt with under the existing flexibility clause, as unanimity at least gives us a veto. Once it is moved to its own treaty base, matters to do with energy will be dealt with by QMV. Britain's unique interest in energy could be overridden, so I do not agree with the hon. Lady on that matter.
	My point is that whole new legal bases were put into the draft constitution at quite a late stage. A bigger example is that of criminal justice and policing. The draft constitution contains powers to harmonise criminal laws and procedures by majority voting.
	This House debated those sensitive matters very recently. Our ability to control and hold accountable magistrates, judges and the police, and our sense of ownership of our criminal justice system, are vital. Those matters lie at the heart of our work in this place, as does the concept of the nation state. We are dealing with the coercive power of the state over its citizens. A state can imprison people, and giving up that power in favour of some more remote jurisdiction is very dangerous. It certainly contradicts the instruction in the Laeken mandate to design a Union that is closer to its citizens.
	How is a close Union created by taking decision making away from the citizen and from this House, and passing it upwards to a more remote tier of Government? I asked that question persistently in the Convention, and I was never given an answer.
	I think that I can assert without any doubt that the structure and essence of the draft constitution are now fixed and that the constitution will reduce the power of this House. We have been offered some crumbs in the form of a subsidiarity check. The Foreign Secretary said in a speech yesterday that the new mechanism would make sure that the Union
	"respects the principle of subsidiarity."
	I am afraid that it will do no such thing. The mechanism involved is only a request.
	The Foreign Secretary went on to say that he was sure that the Commission would "get the message". I am afraid that that is all that it will get. If the Commission gets such a request from one third of member state Parliaments, the draft protocol provides that the Commission "shall review its proposal", after which it
	"may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw its proposal."
	Well, thanks very much, but we can do that already. We can send the Commission a message asking it to review a proposal, and it can say no. That situation is going to persist, and there will be no additional power for this House. Against that, we are losing massive powers as a result of the loss of the national veto in so many areas. Also, the whole area of criminal justice and policing is being moved out of the third pillar, where it was corralled precisely to protect its intergovernmental nature. It is now being put into the main treaty structure, with majority voting.
	The draft protocol means that all the other institutions of Europe get more power, but not national Parliaments. The Council probably gets the least extra power; it has paid a heavy price for the symbol of having a full-time President to chair its quarterly meetings. The new president of Europe will not be a serving head of government, answerable to an electorate. That is specifically ruled out. The President of the Commission may take on the job, as that is allowed for in the draft, but I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), that there would be a diminution in the concept that elected heads of Government or state should be in charge.
	Many people are dismissive of the idea of the rotating presidency. I rather agree with it; it gives small countries in particular a feeling that they can occasionally have some real influence, and it brings the Union closer to citizens if the presidency is parked for a few months in individual capitals instead of always being run from Brussels. The proposals seem to go in the opposite direction to the constant injunction that we should bring the whole thing closer to the citizen.
	Finally, I turn to the common foreign and security policy. There will be majority voting—that is a red line, if one defined in an extraordinarily contorted phrase, which I shall read out for the benefit of anyone interested in Euro-speak—
	"when adopting a decision on a Union action or position, on a proposal which the Minister puts forward to it following a specific request to him from the European Council made at its own initiative or that of the Minister".
	I have read that several times, and I am still none the wiser; suffice it to say that there is provision for some majority voting on a common foreign and security policy. The British Government are against it, and I am glad of that at least.
	Even if the Government manage to take out that red line, however, there will still be a European Foreign Minister who "shall" conduct the Union's common foreign and security policy. The text is littered with obligations for member states to conform to the policy concerned. The best, and clearest, is in article I-15:
	"Member states shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the acts adopted by the Union in this area."
	It is sometimes said that something similar to that wording can be found in existing treaties. That is true, but they are treaties, and this is an enforceable constitution. We know that from looking at the new powers of the European Commission, which is given a new job:
	"It shall ensure the application of the Constitution".
	The European Court of Justice
	"shall ensure respect for the law in the interpretation and application of the Constitution."
	Finally, and perhaps clearest of all, the draft states that the constitution
	"shall have primacy over the law of Member States."
	It is all down in black and white; we do not have to speculate about it.
	We had a debate earlier about the significance of the primacy clause, and it has been alleged in some quarters that it is already in the existing treaties. That is not true. The case law of the European Court of Justice has established over the years that Community law is superior to that of member states, but we are adding that unconditionally into an article in a constitution. I know that the British Government are concerned about that from comments made by the Leader of the House in plenary sessions of the Convention and from the amendments that he tabled there. The point is rightly of concern to the Government, but are they going to try to have it removed?
	The significant point is not that Union law will have primacy, although one can argue about the merits of that. The point is that the constitution will have primacy, and that is a wholly new concept, because there is no constitution at present. When there is one, it will, in all respects, whether in passing law or in demanding solidarity or mutual obligation, have primacy over the laws of member states. That is a giant step forward. It is completely new, and it is absurd to call the process a tidying-up exercise.
	We must have a national debate between the end of the Convention and the start of the intergovernmental conference. For that to take place, we need a White Paper from the Government. I agree with what the Liberal Democrat spokesman said on the subject earlier—it is very important that the Government now tell us what they can accept, what they cannot accept, and what they hope to achieve so that we can have a national debate. An even more fundamental precondition is that we are all honest about what is in the draft. If these changes are so good for this country, let the Government argue the case for them. It is intolerable that they should pretend that it is merely a matter of tidying up what we have already. These changes are of giant constitutional significance. If they have merits, let us hear what they are. I will argue the opposite, and we can have an honest debate.
	Finally, and most importantly, after all that is done, this matter can be decided only by the people. I often disagree with Valéry Giscard d'Estaing—I have had many spats with him in the past 15 months—but right at the start he said something that was true. He said that treaties are for Governments but constitutions are for people.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that the time limit of 10 minutes imposed by Mr. Speaker now applies to Back-Bench speeches.

Eric Illsley: It is an interesting time for European affairs, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said. I welcome the statement on the single currency made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago. I hope that this country can now start moving towards the convergence to which he referred in his speech and towards a single currency.
	On the European Convention and the Thessaloniki European summit, I do not intend to follow the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) save to say that his comments were only to be expected. I think that that was why the Conservative party suggested that he should be its delegate to the Convention—because of his history of Euroscepticism. The hysteria that Conservative Members generate towards aspects of the European Union never fails to amaze me. Some of the hysterical outpourings in recent times have been incredible.
	The constitution is in draft form; it is not yet completed. It has to go to the European summit and then to an intergovernmental conference, yet we are debating it as though it were cast in stone and about to be deposited on us. It is some time away. To start talking at this stage about whether the matter should be put to a referendum is incredible. The right hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members say that Maastricht and the other treaties were then, but this is now and we should have a referendum because this is a constitution. That is not the case. We did not have a referendum on Maastricht. The then Prime Minister rejected any such referendum. It was dealt with like any other treaty—it was put before the House in the form of an Act of Parliament.

William Cash: rose—

Eric Illsley: I shall not give way as I am restricted to 10 minutes. Other hon. Members have taken longer than that, so I do not have time.
	We have had no other referendums on such matters and I do not see why we should have one now. The right hon. Member for Wells went on about the constitutional changes and the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) went on about the new competencies. Perhaps they are reading the wrong document. I do not see it like that.
	As for the new newspaper polls that pass themselves off as referendums—obviously, I am referring to the Daily Mail poll and individuals were ringing radio programmes and contacting the press to say how many times they had voted in that—the figures quoted must be treated with a large dose of salts.
	The constitutional Convention has been sitting for about 15 months. I pay tribute to both my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who also serves on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the right hon. Member for Wells as they have spent masses of time in Europe at meetings and all the rest and have worked hard. However, the process has been going on for 15 months without receiving any press coverage; now, it is generating anti-European hysteria. I find it surprising that we face a barrage of anti-European rhetoric about a draft document that is yet to be decided, and that will be decided over the next few months.
	I want to consider some aspects of the draft constitution. I am beginning to think that perhaps "draft constitution" is the wrong title for it. Perhaps the Convention should have used a different title to avoid confusing it with, for example, a country's constitution, which was what the right hon. Member for Devizes was aiming at when he talked about a constitution superseding aspects of our constitution. Neither I nor many other people see it as taking over aspects of our constitution: it simply sets out and codifies treaties and European legislation that are already in existence. Again, the whole thing must be agreed unanimously by all member Governments and ratified. We are therefore a long way away from a final document.
	When the final decision is taken we will have a single document setting out clearly all the European treaties and documents, whereas, at the moment, anybody who wanted to find the acquis communautaire or other European legislation would have to refer to a whole range of documents and treaties. The right hon. Member for Wells talked about bringing Europe closer to the people, and the fact that we will have a single document will bring it closer to the people, as it will be easier to see what European Union law will be. It will make the adoption of all European Union legislation subject to the prior scrutiny of national Parliaments and the double approval of both national Governments in the EU Council and directly elected MPs.
	One problem with European legislation coming through this House is that it receives hardly any scrutiny whatever. We have European Standing Committees A and B, which I was instrumental in setting up a few years ago in the Procedure Committee, and now the European Scrutiny Committee. Draft directives debated in this House, however, are few and far between. We have seen that recently with the end-of-life vehicles directive being implemented in law, and the directive in relation to the disposal of refrigeration equipment. Little information was provided about those, and little scrutiny. An unsuspecting public therefore face European directives that the House has not really debated or had the opportunity to amend. I welcome further scrutiny of all EU legislation, as that is an improvement that gives us, as representatives of our communities, the chance to have an input into European legislation, which, so far, we have not really had. That would bring it closer to the people.
	On qualified majority voting and the removal of some vetoes, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) referred to an article, which probably appeared in a newspaper this evening, saying that the EU has rejected our proposals on asylum. Perhaps that has happened as a result of use of the veto. If the veto had not been available, and the decision had been taken by QMV, our proposals on that aspect of asylum and immigration might have been accepted. Having the veto in every area is therefore perhaps not the great thing that it appears to be. Moving to qualified majority voting in a number of areas might allow us to get some sensible proposals accepted around Europe that previously we have not been able to do.
	The Government have said many times that there will be exceptions to qualified majority voting in which we will retain the veto, notably tax, social security, foreign policy and defence. I welcome that.
	I welcome, too, the red and yellow card idea, whereby if several national Parliaments opposed a legislative proposal it could be rejected. That would give national representatives more chances to affect European legislation. We could lobby for changes and reject completely unacceptable aspects of legislative policy.
	There has been discussion of the idea that an elected president or chair should serve for a term of two and a half years. Over the past few years, I have travelled in Europe with the Foreign Affairs Committee, meeting the holders of the EU presidency. Each of them is required to draw up a programme for their six months in office and to chair EU meetings in their country. That is an unwieldy situation that will get worse with enlargement and it cannot continue. We need some stability; we do not need the current six-month programmes but a long-range programme for the EU, without constant chopping and changing.
	I do not understand the attitude of Opposition Members. We should deal with these proposals as we have dealt with treaties in the past—by means of a Bill in this place. We should reject the hysteria for a referendum. We have not held one on previous occasions. Furthermore, Conservative Prime Ministers repeatedly rejected them.

John Redwood: rose—

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me? I have before me a press release, issued by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) several hours ago, which begins:
	"Speaking in the House of Commons on 18th June, John Redwood said:".
	It then sets out what I presume is the speech that he has not yet made, unless I have missed something. Can you confirm that to issue such a press release is to presume that he would catch your eye? I am only a new Member, but he is an experienced Member and such a presumption on his part would surely be to go too far. After all—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	This is not the US Senate where Members can simply issue a press release and it is then written into the record; we have to catch the eye of the Speaker. Are you not especially surprised by this press release, Madam Deputy Speaker, bearing in mind the number of times that the right hon. Gentleman has inveighed against the Government for issuing press releases before—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have understood the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. My only comment is that it was perhaps a little unwise of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) to have issued a press release at this point in time.

John Redwood: I am grateful to you for your courtesy, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have not presumed; I merely set out some comments for the press. The press release was embargoed and issued only on the basis that I might be called, so I am grateful that I was called—[Interruption.] When the press release was given to journalists, the basis on which it was issued was explained. The point of order was simply an attempt to put the Opposition off their stride, as they are making the House and the country aware of the revolutionary document that is the draft constitution.
	The document represents a massive shift in the relative powers of the member states of the EU, creating a powerful centralised Union with its own legal personality. A big power grab is being accomplished in the field of criminal justice and law, and in immigration and asylum policy, which the Government welcome and urge on the EU. There will be a big shift in the relative powers on foreign policy and defence. I shall concentrate my brief remarks on those points.
	The draft constitution makes it clear that the member states
	"shall support the Union's common foreign and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity . . . The member states shall work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity . . . and . . . refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations".

Denis MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, quoting from the existing treaties negotiated by the Government of whom he was a member. There is nothing new at all in what he has just said.

John Redwood: I am quoting from the draft constitution. What is new is that the three pillars are being collapsed into one, so such things are justiciable in the European Court of Justice for the first time and will become legally binding. That has to be seen in the context of the very wide-ranging aims for the Union set out for the first time in new language in the draft constitution.
	If the United Kingdom were to accept the draft constitution and we wanted to undertake action with the United States of America in Iraq, and the European Union did not like that, the EU would have an effective veto against our action for the first time. The EU could appeal to the ECJ, which could rule that such action was against the interests of the Union and the objectives set out in the constitution. That is a very decisive shift in the relative powers of the member state and the Union in foreign affairs. That is clearly buttressed in the draft document by creating a very powerful minister for foreign affairs,
	"who shall conduct political dialogue on the Union's behalf and shall express the Union's position in international organisations and in international conferences."
	The document goes on to make it very clear that that very powerful man will chair the Foreign Affairs Council, so he will be senior to our Foreign Secretary, whoever he may be. He will have the most decisive power over setting the agenda of the Foreign Affairs Council and, in certain circumstances, he will be able to act without direct controls from the Council when things are fast-moving and he is given some discretion.
	Of course, the foreign affairs minister is also the man or woman who will attend the United Nations Security Council and put our case—the case of the EU—whatever the UK or France might think was the right case to put and whatever they might like to do with their seats on the Security Council. The Government's defence is to say that the EU foreign affairs minister could not become a member of the UN Security Council without changing the charter and the arrangements at the UN. That is where the draft constitution is so clever. Ministers are correct in saying that, but, to get round that point, the constitution says that member states that are members of the Security Council will in the execution of their functions defend the positions and the interests of the Union and that the member states that are members of the Security Council
	"shall request that the Minister for Foreign Affairs be asked to present the Union's position."
	We will not be requested to allow the EU Minister for Foreign Affairs to represent us. There will be no dialogue; nor will we have any influence in the matter. It very clear that, for the first time in foreign affairs, there will be a legally binding requirement under the draft constitution, if approved, for the EU Minister for Foreign Affairs to put our case at the UN and effectively to override our independent seat on that very important body.
	As other hon. Members have already said, the power to override and construct international agreements will be generally given to the Union—it is a prime competence, where the Union will have the first say—so not just in foreign affairs, but in practically every area, the Union can bind us by virtue of having the power to settle international agreements. All the Union has to do is find a few other countries around the world that will do a deal with it and enter into an international agreement, which will be legally binding on the member states under the clauses of the constitution, and we will then be circumscribed in our powers to legislate on such matters.
	As we have heard during the debate, the Government say that there is no need to worry because we already have a veto on EU foreign policy and that that veto will remain in place. Of course, that is quite true, but the Government are suppressing from the House the secret veto—the veto that the EU will gain over anything that we might wish to do, by virtue of the very strong clauses on mutual solidarity and loyalty to the Union's policy. We will have to explain to the Union anything that we might choose to do, and the Union could use the very clever structure of the constitution to say that anything that we wanted to do was against the Union's aims and objectives. That would be justiciable in the ECJ, and we would face injunction or infraction proceedings against us if we tried to preserve our current independence in foreign affairs.
	In this debate, we are invited to refer to the interesting report by the European Scrutiny Committee on the role of national Parliaments. One good aspect of the draft constitution, if it survives, is that the Council of Ministers would be open to the public when it meets as a legislature. Although that would be a distinct improvement, the measure does not go far enough. The Council of Ministers, as a legislature, lacks a formal opposition. No one in the legislature is charged with saying that a law is not needed, that a law is bad or that a draft does not work.
	The Minister knows, as do I from attending many such meetings, that the process works by virtue of negotiation among countries to broker national interests. No formal group is charged with the duty of opposing draft legislation by questioning the overall need for it and providing sensible commentary on its detail, which is thought to be entirely appropriate in this House. We should think about how a formal opposition could be implemented in the powerful legislature of the Council of Ministers given that the draft constitution says that it could presume to legislate on practically everything of interest to Governments.
	The Minister thinks that the situation is terribly funny but he presumably believes sufficiently in British parliamentary democracy to accept that the Opposition have an important role when dealing with national legislation. However, no one has a similar role in the Council of Ministers because its proceedings are based on a different presumption. The system means that we already get far too much legislation from Brussels and if the draft constitution is passed, we shall be deluged with even more legislation, much of which will be agreed by qualified majority voting, on many matters on which the Commission is establishing more territorial control and exercising more power.

Wayne David: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the European Scrutiny Committee's excellent report. Does he agree with the report's recommendation for an early-warning mechanism through which national Parliaments could receive recommendations from the Commission, deliberate on them and, hopefully, say no if they disagree with the Commission's suggestions?

John Redwood: I would like as good a measure and as much advance warning and opportunity for debate as possible. It would help if this Government's Ministers adopted a practice that I adopted as a Minister—when my colleagues allowed me. [Interruption.] There were times when I was allowed to adopt it. Ministers should give hon. Members a sufficiently early opportunity to debate an EU proposal that is likely to become a law that would affect Britain, or a directive for us to introduce a law, so that the House may form a view and offer Ministers advice before they negotiate the law on our behalf. It is a more productive use of our time to debate a draft law while Ministers still have the opportunity to influence it than to debate it after it has been agreed by the Council of Ministers—the effective legislature—and passed into law because at that time what we think does not matter and our views are of little use.
	If the draft constitution is accepted, we could try to claim that a law offends the rules of subsidiarity but I doubt whether the proposed system will work. I cannot imagine any law being rejected on the ground of subsidiarity under the weak and feeble provisions of the current draft constitution. I urge the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe to take the mood of the House seriously. The rather weak yellow card should be upgraded to a red card because the concept of subsidiarity will otherwise have no meaning.
	I am most preoccupied by the way in which the attitude in the constitution shows that the European Union has more or less completed its task of establishing its supremacy and occupying territory on every major aspect of government for which it wants to take powers. If one reads the fundamental rights and aims and the many words describing what the Union is all about, no one can doubt that the state and its Government are more or less complete. It is not a federal state; it is highly centralised with enormously powerful ambitions. The state wishes to move quickly toward having a common military force and it wants Europe to re-arm. For that reason, the draft constitution establishes an armaments agency, which will urge member states to make good the deficiencies in their current pattern of armaments and, obviously, to spend far more on armaments. One thing that disturbs the architects of the new European superpower is that although it has great ambition, it does not have well-equipped military forces that can be projected abroad easily, because it does not have the transport or the sophisticated weaponry. The draft constitution is in no small measure about trying to remedy that defect through that powerful agency and the powers that the Union wishes to take to urge, and then probably to demand, that member states re-arm so that its power can be projected by strong transport and better weaponry around the world.
	I put to the House—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up. 5.30 pm

Ian Davidson: The disconnection between the public and the political elite is greater on Europe than on any other policy. The divergence between what is being done in the name of the people and their actual views is wider on that than on anything else. We have to take that seriously. For some time, this Government and other Governments have proceeded almost against the will of the general public. That has contributed to the general sense of alienation from politics that we experience in Britain, as demonstrated by low turnouts, votes for extremist parties and other symptoms.
	The air of inevitability about many of the European initiatives and ventures does not mean that the public at large have enthusiastically adopted those proposals; rather, it reflects the public's assumption that they will be unable to affect the direction in which the political elite are leading the country and that things will happen irrespective of their opposition. That is not a healthy environment. In the light of those circumstances, I am extremely supportive of the calls for a referendum on the new European constitution.
	A referendum would act as a brake on the implementation of the constitution until the public are convinced that that they want to move in that direction. I have no doubt that without the clear commitment to hold a referendum before deciding whether to join the euro, the Government would already be in the process of taking us into it. What they have been unable to handle is the test of public opinion. The commitment to a referendum for such a major step forward is essential.
	I do not accept—indeed, I did not accept it at the time—the assurances given to us by the former Minister for Europe that the new constitution was simply a tidying-up exercise. Many hon. Members who are more knowledgeable than I am gave the details of some of the proposals. It was always an insult to people's intelligence to suggest that it was mainly a tidying-up process. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) suggested, there has been an insidious process of accretion of powers to the centre throughout the life of the Common Market, the European Community and now the European Union. The development of a new constitution takes that process a step further.
	Although I accept that matters are not yet agreed, as several Labour Members explained, we are entitled to be extremely suspicious of the proposals that have so far come forward and to seek clarification on the Government's negotiating position. Previous treaties contained the assumption of ever-closer union. I should like the Minister to clarify whether the Government have been working and will work to have that removed, so that there is no assumption of the ever-greater accretion of powers to the centre. We need a clear statement that, if the process is completed and a new treaty is agreed, what has been achieved is the end of the road until such time as another treaty revision takes place, and there will not be a continuing process of accretion. We are entitled to ask the Government for a clear statement on that.
	We are also entitled to ask whether provision will be made for some of the powers already taken to the centre to be brought back. If the Government are prepared to negotiate that, and if they achieve it, what powers and areas of responsibility that have previously been sucked into the centre do they believe should be the subject of subsidiarity? What powers will they wish to bring back to us?
	I have always taken the view that a free trade area, which was the purpose for which the Common Market was established, would inevitably develop its own currency, constitution and state, and that many people would welcome that. I was struck by the picture on television at the end of the Convention process, when we saw the then Minister for Europe standing to attention with the other delegates while the "Ode to Joy" was played. That seemed to demonstrate that the creation of a European superstate was under way. There is an argument for that, but the Government would be more honest and have a much better chance of commanding public opinion if they came out and argued the logic of their position and explained why they thought that that was desirable and essential—which presumably they do, if they support it.

Denis MacShane: This may be a conversation for the Tea Room, but is my hon. Friend about to argue that at their football matches, all Scots should stand to attention when the British national anthem is played and treat it with full respect, honour and dignity?

Ian Davidson: What a silly point. I do not generally attend football matches, but I attend rugby matches. The British national anthem, which I understand to be "God Save the Queen", is usually played as the English national anthem when England are playing. I am quite prepared to support it in those circumstances.
	I am tempted to say, "What exactly is your point, caller?" If it is suggested that the "Ode to Joy" is a national anthem, and therefore that it was appropriate for the Minister for Europe to stand to attention, exactly whose national anthem is it? As far as I am aware, the "Ode to Joy" is not the national anthem of any individual member country of the European Union. The Ministers were standing to attention on the basis that it was the anthem of the European Union. That was the point that I was trying to make, which the Minister has greatly helped to clarify, to the edification of the assembled multitude.
	I turn to the European Union's achievements to date. We are entitled to ask whether we should continue to go down that road and whether the EU has been an enormous success. The questions can be answered by examining the common agricultural policy. Any organisation that runs an agricultural policy in the way that the CAP has been run is not entitled to much further support. I cannot help but think that we could do worse than be out of the CAP.
	Another policy area that we can consider to see how the European Union has behaved is fraud. The scale of fraud, waste and corruption in the EU would never be entertained in a local authority or any other establishment or organisation. The scale of fraud cannot even be accurately estimated. The very body to which we might look for statistics, EUROSTAT, is currently the subject of fraud investigations. The tolerance of such malpractice for some considerable time damns those who have been responsible for the running of the EU.

Wayne David: Will my hon. Friend stop in his diatribe of the European Union to acknowledge that many facets of it have brought positive advantages to his constituency? I am thinking simply of jobs.

Ian Davidson: If I did not believe that aspects of the European Union had brought gains to my constituency, I would be in favour of withdrawal, but I am not. I am in favour of drastic reform and abolishing some aspects of the EU's work that it does not do well. I am in favour of returning some powers to a national level, but I believe that we should still have a European Union. If we cleaned up its act, it would continue to provide some gains and could in some circumstances produce even greater ones. However, we should be much more vigorous in pursuing reform.
	I am conscious that speeches are subject to a time limit, but in the few moments that remain to me I wish to refer to the question of a referendum and its impact on the Government. The momentum for a referendum on a question that relates to Europe is virtually unstoppable. By standing in the face of that momentum, the Government will be alienating even more public opinion than they have already alienated on this question. This is a question not only of Europe, but of the Government being prepared to listen to the people and willing to take account of public opinion. The fact that we are not doing that on this issue could dangerously imperil the Government and their re-election, to which I am completely committed. That is what will happen if we continue to stand against the tide of public opinion about a referendum.
	I therefore hope that the Government will be able to ignore the fact that the referendum proposal is also supported by the Conservatives, examine it on its own merits and recognise that, if they are genuine about building a pro-European consensus, they must do so by persuasion and not by ramming the changes through without allowing the people a voice.

Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) made a sincere and powerful speech. I only hope that Ministers will have listened to what he said on the basis of the sincere points that he made. He did not try to score any political points, but simply pointed out that the people of Britain are getting fed up to the back teeth with what they see as an ever-increasing process of taking away from their sovereignty and are annoyed about having no right to say anything about it.
	The hon. Gentleman was also right about voting figures, which I wish all Governments would bear in mind. Turnout in European elections has dropped to 25 per cent. I also have with me the figures for national elections. Between 1979 and 2001, the number of people voting Conservative fell from 13.7 million to 8.4 million. Labour numbers did not rise, but fell from 11.5 million to 10.7 million, and the Liberal Democrat figure rose a little, from 4.2 million to 4.8 million. The strangest thing, however, was that the only parties to increase their vote substantially were the other parties—the strange, unusual ones with all the nutty ideas. People are getting fed up with our democracy, which is being undermined.
	What depresses me is that throughout all the debates—as an old man, I have been in the House for a long time and I have had the opportunity to vote against all the treaties—no matter who is in power and who the Minister is, we always get the same speech. It is the same speech that we heard from the Government Front Bench earlier: "There is nothing much in this proposal, there is nothing to worry about and we have got safeguards." Every single time, however, a substantial amount of power has gone and Britain has been much damaged.
	In relation to what the Government have said about asylum, for example, I should like to mention a story that appeared on page 4 of today's Evening Standard. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, take life very seriously, I am sure that you will remember that in March the Home Secretary announced new plans to deal with asylum seekers. He said that we would control the problem by setting up centres outside the European Union and that we would put all the asylum seekers in Albania or on an island and consider things carefully. The proposal was welcomed by some and widely discussed. Some people said that it was silly and others said that it was a great idea, but the Government announced it, and now a Foreign Office spokesman has made a statement saying that, sadly, it has gone. It is out and it has finished, basically because the EU does not want it. That is one area out of a whole series in which powers have gone—something that should concern us all.
	I should like briefly to put to the Government five simple points. First, notwithstanding the attitude that he seems to take to those who criticise the Government, will the Minister assure me that he will do all in his power to prevent the passing of legislation on the Convention that would reduce our rebate from the European Union? When Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister, she fought hard for that rebate because we were paying far too much. We know—not from anything that the Government have done, but because we have a very hard-working Committee—that part of the arrangement means that the rebate could be reduced. I simply ask the Government to do all that they can to remove from the treaty, the constitution or whatever it is called the clauses that would give the majority an opportunity to undermine us.
	Secondly, will the Minister try hard to ensure that the new proposal to allow withdrawal—which can be found on page 46 of the progress report, dealing with article 1-59—is clarified? This is the first time any treaty or similar arrangement has contained a provision allowing a member state to withdraw. As has been pointed out, the only country that has ever got out is Greenland, and it got out only because every other member state approved a law allowing it to do so.
	The trouble is that before a member state can withdraw there must be an agreement between the Council of Ministers and that member state, which must then be approved by a qualified majority and also by the European Parliament.That provides no guarantee whatever. It means that a country wishing to withdraw—certainly, I think that any organisation is strengthened by the granting of an opportunity to withdraw from it—will not have the right to do so unless it can present a proposal that is acceptable to the Council of Ministers and to the European Parliament. There should be a provision entitling a country wishing to withdraw to do so. There should be a guarantee, and the possibility of an independent choice.
	Thirdly, I simply want to ask the Government what on earth we are going to do about agriculture. We had a splendid Secretary of State for International Development, who sadly resigned. I feared that the new Secretary of State might not be quite so good—that she might be a softie—but she too is a splendid person, called Lady Amos. I received a letter from her today, which thrilled me. She wrote:
	"EU citizens provide Euro45 billion of taxes to fund the CAP and a further Euro50 billion from their pockets to buy more expensive products. This situation is not only morally bankrupt, but also economically and environmentally unsustainable. We cannot preach fair trade abroad while practising protectionism at home."
	That is the clearest message we have had from a Minister about the CAP. It accepts that the CAP is one of the most shocking, appalling, disgraceful arrangements that we have ever had in any democracy, that it costs a fortune, that the farmers who did pretty well when it began are now not doing well at all, and—crucially—that the people who are suffering horribly as a result of it are those in the third world.
	If we have to give a lot of money to farmers and if, because we have too many farmers, we have to give more, that is a matter for us. What we are not entitled to do is engage in the horrible business of dumping food on the world market in a way that causes devastation in the third world. The perfect example is sugar. One would think that the EU should be importing sugar because other countries, unlike us, can grow it successfully, but in fact we export it at a price four times the world value. We also spend a fortune dumping it in the third world, and those who live in some of the poorest areas suffer.
	The situation is shameful. It is horrible. It is shocking. We all know that—we have been talking about it for years. Moreover, it is getting worse and worse. It will get worse still following the extension of the EU to include such countries as Poland and Romania. There is no way in which we will persuade the EU to reform the CAP, because that would mean some countries suffering more than others. Although Governments of all complexions have shouted that the CAP will be reformed, as indeed have Liberal Democrats—those who are sincere—it is a non-starter. It will not happen; it cannot happen. The situation can only get worse. I would like the Government to say what they are going to do about it. People in the third world are suffering enormously, and it seems to me that the only way in which we can take action is to say, "No more treaties unless we have some reform", and certainly to put a block on money. That is absolutely vital.
	I ask the Government in all sincerity whether, to assist people and to try to tell the truth about Europe, they could issue a balance sheet that tells us about the money that we have to pay in. Many people are shocked when I tell them that every hour—24 hours a day, seven days a week—we send a cheque for £1.4 million to the EU. It would make a huge difference to people in places where there is a great deal of poverty, misery and degradation, and where money is needed because their local authorities do not have it, if they could get a cheque for £1.4 million. Those people would like to know how much we have paid into the EU since we joined and how much we have got out. A lot of the money that comes in is totally wasted, of course, but nevertheless it is half of the amount that goes out. Could we not have a note saying what the cost has been?
	On trade, it appals me when people say, apparently sincerely, that we must stay in Europe because of the trade. That is a load of codswallop. Just last week, figures were published showing that when we established the single market, which was meant to offer guarantees of more trade to people in Britain, France and Germany, the countries that enjoyed more trade than any others were America and Japan. Although America was not a member of the EU, in the period from the establishment of the single market to 2000, American exports to the area went up by twice as much as those of France and Germany, and Japanese exports went up by 27 per cent. more.
	The idea that we must simply stay in because of jobs and trade is a load of codswallop. If anyone doubts that, they should have been with me in Norway and Switzerland when they had their referendums. All these clever EU people were saying, "You've got to join, otherwise jobs will be destroyed and the people will be ruined", yet of course those countries are among the most prosperous in the world.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.

Kelvin Hopkins: I was one of a band—sadly, rather a small band—of Members who regularly attended the Standing Committee on the Convention on the Future of Europe. I pay tribute to our representatives on the Convention, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), both of whom represented robustly and vigorously the interests of this House and of the British people. I congratulate them on that and on the way in which they reported back to us.
	I have long been a supporter of enlargement. Indeed, almost all hon. Members seem to support it, primarily for the reason that it will make the European Union a much more sensible organisation. It will inevitably lead to a loosening of the relationship between the nations of Europe: that will make it work much better. It is interesting that the most effective speech against enlargement that I have heard was made during the previous Parliament by Sir Edward Heath, the former leader of the Conservative party, who feared that it would lead us away from federalism and a strong, concentrated, state of Europe towards a looser arrangement of independent, democratic states, which is what the great majority of British people, and the great majority of Members of this House, really want. That is why I support enlargement. Some are concerned that smaller, weaker nations want to share in the wealth and prosperity of western Europe. We may hope that that will be one of the by-products of enlargement, but that is not necessarily so. I shall come to that in a little while.
	My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that the 25 nations of the proposed enlarged European Union would constitute the geographical limits of Europe. I would refer him to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and to a trenchant and impressive speech made by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) some weeks ago, in which he asked how we define Europe. I think that it goes well beyond the definition that the Foreign Secretary used. One might say that it stretches from the Atlantic to the Urals, but the Urals are well east of where it is proposed that the European Union will stop. If we are talking about a cultural Europe, I suspect that there are Russian-speaking citizens of Vladivostok who like Pushkin, Tchaikovsky and football, who are in many ways not dissimilar from ourselves, and who would equally call themselves Europeans, yet Vladivostok is a long way from the European Union. So we have to be careful about the way in which we define Europe and I look forward to possible further expansion in future.
	I want to devote most of my speech to the euro, not only our membership of it but its future. If anything will undermine and destroy the European Union, it is the euro and it is time that Europe considered getting rid of it and embarking on another economic way forward. Since last week, we have entered a new era beyond the five economic tests. The political landscape in both Britain and Europe is different. Britain will not join the euro for the foreseeable future and even a referendum appears to be some years ahead. To me, all the warm words resemble those of a lover who says to his girlfriend, "I love you, but we're incompatible and I don't want to marry you."
	The euro is a serious matter for existing members of that currency and us. Clearly, the Treasury has considered it and does not want to have much to do with it. It was badly burned by the exchange rate mechanism experience and noted our strong and rapid recovery once we departed from the ERM. We had the strongest growth perhaps for some decades immediately after we got out of the bind caused by being tied to the European currencies. Doubtless, the Chancellor has considered that and spoken to his Treasury colleagues and I am pleased by what he said.
	Perhaps the Chancellor has read the wise words of Professor Wilhelm Nolling, who, until some years ago, was a SPD politician—effectively on our side—in the German Parliament. After that, he was a director of the Bundesbank and now he is an economics professor at Hamburg. He recently said:
	"The present euro zone structure is devastating for Germany . . . Our economy is bleeding. And I am convinced the UK would be crazy to join—you should stay out for as long as I can foresee."
	Those are the words of a former director of the Bundesbank. As for the German economy, Professor Nolling continued:
	"Deflation has already arrived, in that our economic dynamism has disappeared . . . There is no willingness among the private sector to invest, and euro zone rules have cut back public investment to an extent we haven't seen since the war."
	Germany has some serious problems inside the eurozone because it cannot adjust interest rates to suit its economy, yet interest rates for the zone are too high for Germany. It cannot depreciate its currency, yet the euro is appreciating strongly against the dollar, increasing Germany's problems. In a sensible world, Germany would want to depreciate its currency significantly to become more competitive again, yet it cannot relax its fiscal policy and has been told to tighten it. When a country is in a recession and anticipating serious deflation, being told to deflate the economy by tightening fiscal policy is clearly economic nonsense.
	Let us consider enlargement and the euro. When weak economies are dragged into such an arrangement and bolted on to strong economies, they can experience serious problems, especially if their internal economy is inflating faster. In the past couple of years, Argentina was overcome by disaster when it bolted its currency to the dollar in the hope that it could squeeze out inflation. That almost destroyed the economy, which began to recover only when it left the arrangement and devalued. Every country must retain the ability to flex its exchange rate to meet the needs of its economy. If we do not do that, the world will suffer. When big economies, such as Germany's, go down, it affects the whole world.
	Smaller, weaker economies are joining the European Union and being encouraged to join the euro. Of course, they will accept almost any terms that are offered to them because they are so desperate to join. Portugal's experience is a warning. It is a smaller, relatively poor economy in the European Union that has decided to adopt strict rules on public spending. It is determined to pursue that policy of economic anorexia. The Financial Times recently published an article on it, entitled "Austerity persists as recession bites". The Portuguese Government are determined to stick it out to the bitter end, cutting their economy, deflating and, I believe, travelling to economic oblivion.
	At some point, something has to give. These policies could be catastrophic for the European Union unless we allow some flexibility on exchange rates. We cannot, by definition, do that inside the euro. We shall have to look towards a time when we unravel the euro and start again.
	I quote again from Professor Nolling:
	"Certainly, the more countries that join, the more ungovernable it will become. In that sense, the euro was born to die."
	This man is a senior political figure, economist and banker in west Germany, which was the strongest economy in Europe. Simply by joining the euro and adopting the deflationary policies of the eurozone, Germany has put its economic miracle into reverse. We must consider seriously the future of the euro, not just for Britain but for the whole of Europe, and I urge my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary to raise these issues with their colleagues in the European Union.

Michael Fabricant: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). It is interesting, and quite revealing, that despite the fact that people have spent nine months to a year discussing the Convention on the Future of Europe and have come to conclusions that most hon. Members find abhorrent—apart from the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), who took the view that there was nothing to worry about at all—the Government tell us that there is no problem because it is only a draft Convention and nothing will come of it.
	We all know better than that, however. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said, both in an intervention and in his excellent speech, there are always compromises when Governments get together. They agree on some things, they disagree on others, and they make compromises. I fear that some of the issues raised in the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) will have to be accepted by the House because of the very compromises that have been mentioned.
	I am not planning to say a great deal about the Convention on the Future of Europe, which has already been covered by many hon. Members. Before I reach the issue that I want to concentrate on, however, I want to say that we have to accept that, in some respects, the European Union has been an agent for good. I believe that the democratic processes that have taken place in Portugal, Spain and Greece came about sooner because of those countries' desire to join the European Union and to enjoy the benefits that membership has given them. I also believe that there has been greater co-operation between the member states of the European Union; that, too, should be applauded.
	The Foreign Secretary talked about the absence of war, but I think that he was going a bit too far. I do not believe that an absence of war stems from membership of the European Union, although membership will certainly not have done any harm in that regard. I believe that the absence of war came about as a result of our membership of NATO and of the common threat of the Soviet Union. Most hon. Members feel very strongly that the European Union should do nothing to undermine NATO, yet there is a very real risk of that happening. That must be avoided at all costs, particularly at this time.
	I want to move on to a subject that dare not speak its name. The moment anyone raises it in the House, they are accused—especially by the Government, at the moment—of talking about withdrawal. I hope that the Minister will not be tempted to accuse me of that. It is a subject that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor): the cost of the European Union. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) said in his excellent speech that he wanted to remain in the European Union and that he felt strongly that there were benefits to be accrued from membership. The problem is that we do not know how much that amounts to.
	At Foreign Office Question Time about a month ago, I asked the Minister for Europe a question, having told him before the sitting what I was going to ask him. He very helpfully answered that no real analysis of the costs or benefits of membership of the European Union had been made since 1997. In fact, the analysis carried out in 1997 was only into the effects on the European Union of its enlargement when the 10 new member states join.
	I raised the matter with the Chancellor only last Thursday, and having done more research it seems that neither John Major's Government nor the present Administration did any such analysis. When the Government were elected in 1997, very early on they adopted the shibboleth that the European Union creates 300,000 jobs in this country. I think that the Foreign Secretary cited that figure again today.

Jack Straw: I never mentioned it.

Michael Fabricant: The figure was certainly cited by the Chancellor, and has been used by Foreign Office Ministers in the past. It is fair enough, but we do not actually know, because no such analysis has been undertaken since at least 1992. I find that very strange indeed. I do not know of any company or individual who would belong to an organisation and not occasionally check what the costs or the benefits are. After all, if I were a member of a club and knew the costs and benefits of membership, it would give me an opportunity to negotiate and get a better deal.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East gave us some statistics on the balance of trade, and I have some further statistics, which I obtained from the Library. From about 1998 onwards, the balance of trade deficit in goods and services has fallen in respect of our trade both with the European Union and with the world. It is only with the United States that we have a balance of trade surplus. The figures have risen remorselessly year after year.
	Our balance of trade in goods with the world is minus £35 billion, with the EU it is minus almost £10 billion, but we have a surplus with the United States. For goods and services—in other words, the entire balance of trade position—in 2002, the last year for which figures are available, we had a deficit with the world of £18.8 billion and with the European Union of almost £14 billion, but we had a balance of trade surplus with the United States of £13.5 billion. Perhaps those figures give the lie to the notion that we necessarily benefit from EU membership—it might be far worse for us if we were not in the EU, but the point is that we do not know.
	According to an analysis undertaken by the US Treasury, the World Trade Organisation gives us access to European markets regardless of whether we are members of the European Union. I have an interesting document produced by the US Treasury about two years ago. It goes into considerable detail about the direct and indirect costs and benefits accruing from our membership of the European Union. Its strange conclusion—it is strange because it runs contrary to everything that we are told—is that the net benefit to the United Kingdom is minus US $40 billion a year. Putting it crudely, that is equivalent to about £500 for every man, woman and child in this country every year, or to almost doubling our state pension overnight.
	We know that that cannot be true, because everyone tells us how much we benefit from the European Union. After all, people tell us that we benefit by 300,000 jobs. My simple message and plea to the Minister today is this: I am sure that those figures are wrong; I am sure that we benefit from the European Union—but let us not guess at it. Will the Government conduct their own cost-benefit analysis, publish the methodology and the results, and set out all the direct and indirect benefits and costs that arise from the EU? Only then can we really know the cost or the benefit of our membership.

Robert Syms: We have had a good debate, in which several issues have been raised. I am not going to go into the detail of the EU constitution, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has already eloquently done so. His speech will be widely circulated and read in my constituency.
	We do have concerns, because although it is only in draft form, we can see that the constitution is heading towards a federal state with a president, a foreign minister, a legal personality and more qualified majority voting. Attempts were made at the Convention—and attempts may still be made—to circumvent the process whereby the constitution has to come back to national Parliaments for further changes. There are many dangers in what is being proposed. I would feel a little more reassured if Government Front Benchers had been more robust in defence of our national interests.
	I am concerned when I hear a Minister who is negotiating our position describe what is happening as a minor tidying-up exercise, and I believe that my constituents and the people of this country will be horrified when they see the implementation of the changes, particularly in the sphere of criminal justice, policing, asylum and immigration. It will come as a shock to many people when they see what eventually emerges.
	The point of the Laeken declaration and of setting up the Convention was to bring Europe closer to the people. One way of achieving that is to consult people far more widely on whether they approve of the changes. If the Government are convinced that the new constitution is the right way for Britain and Europe, why not trust the people to take the decision on the choices available?
	The Government have used referendums widely. We have had referendums to decide whether Hartlepool or North Tyneside should have a mayor, and whether London should have a Mayor. Amendments tabled in the other place to the Water Bill may lead to referendums to decide whether certain areas of the country have fluoride in their water. Many of my constituents write to express their concern about fluoride, and I am not opposed to having referendums on that matter. However, it is a strange world in which we are happy to consult people on such issues, but not on what could well set the course of the nation for many years to come. The Government should consider having a referendum on this important subject, and trust the people to make the choice.
	As the debate has already shown, one of the main reasons why the Government are adamantly against a referendum is that, when the last Conservative Government announced that they would accept a referendum on the euro, the Labour party, then in opposition, felt that it should adopt the same policies in preparation for the election of 1997. If the Government mean what they say and wish to join the euro, they have been stopped for one simple reason. They have undertaken to consult the people, but it is evident from polls, or even from talking to people at bus stops, that the euro is not, at this time, an issue that is likely to secure the consent of the British people. That has become a block on Government policy.
	In the circles in which the Minister for Europe moves, I can envisage people saying to him, "If we concede a referendum, there will be a great danger of the Government's policy being blocked." The Government should reconsider their position. If they really have confidence in it, they should be prepared to argue the case on the streets, in the town halls and in the villages of our nation to convince people about the right way to go.
	We have heard in the debate that this is only a draft constitution, that it is early days yet, and that it is not all done and dusted. Much of that argument has come from the Government side, yet Labour Members supported referendums on devolution for Scotland and Wales even before legislation was introduced, and even before the long detailed debates had been conducted. Therefore, they should make a commitment to have a referendum now. Even if changes are made—I hope that they are—at the final IGC, the Government should have the confidence to let the British people make the decision. If they adopted that policy, it would certainly strengthen the hand of the British negotiators at the IGC.

Tom Harris: If the hon. Gentleman decided that the final version of the constitution would not in fact make any major constitutional changes to the way in which Britain is governed, would he say that we no longer needed a referendum? Or does he believe that we should have a referendum whatever the constitution says?

Robert Syms: The final shape of the constitution is already clear from the draft documents that have been produced. I hope that the Government will stand up for British interests and gut much of what is proposed. If that happened, I would be happy to say that we would not need a referendum—but nothing I have heard from Ministers suggests that it is likely to happen.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the likelihood of a referendum would change the nature of the proposals? That would be a benefit, because the proposals would then have to be in line with what was likely to be acceptable to the people.

Robert Syms: That is right, but the Government have an alternative. If a general election were held before the constitution was ratified, they could put it in their manifesto and run for election on it. Over the years, Governments have signed up to European treaties. Indeed, Labour Members have criticised Conservative Governments for ratifying treaties without referendums. However, Maastricht was in the Conservative manifesto that was put before the people. The waters are muddied, because people vote on many other issues, but ratification could be justified because it had appeared in an election manifesto as one of the issues on which the Government went to the country.
	As many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, the Convention was not in the Labour manifesto in 2001. I do not suggest that the Government's majority would have been much lower had it been there, but it would have provided a legitimacy for the Government's decision not to consult the British people on the issue. They could claim that people had already taken it into account when they voted.

Jim Marshall: The hon. Gentleman advances a dangerous argument. He mentioned Maastricht and 1992. Is he claiming that the Conservative Members who harassed the Major Government about the Maastricht treaty were ignoring the wishes of the British electorate?

Robert Syms: That was clearly in the Conservative manifesto, although I am sure that individual Members put their views in their election addresses and had to decide on their actions accordingly. The essential element of this issue is the euro, and we have a pledge of a referendum on that point. Many of the ambitions that people had for Maastricht have not been fulfilled, simply because it has not got us into the single currency. A referendum is the right option, if the Government have confidence in their position and their negotiating skills at the IGC. The British people should have their say.
	We have had some interesting contributions on the euro. We can see from what is happening in Europe at present that a single currency and a single interest rate cause significant problems, especially for Germany, which has 5 million unemployed. When I was growing up, it would have been incredible if Britain's employment record had been significantly better than Germany's.
	Part of the problem is the inflexibility of the single currency. We have had much discussion of convergence and the right rate for entry, but economies change. The rate may be right when one joins, but economic circumstances can change substantially, and it can become the wrong rate. Fixing one aspect of economic life throws other aspects out of kilter. I have always believed that when we are faced with deprivation, unemployment and difficulty, our national Government can at least deal with problems related to currency and interest rate policy. In contrast, an insulated central bank that cannot be lobbied will cause great difficulties.

Angela Watkinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and to follow some distinguished speakers on both sides of the House, all of whom have expressed sincerely held views. The relationship between the UK and Europe, and the direction in which it develops, are of profound importance to the future of our country. It is worth mentioning the differences between Europe the continent, the European Union, which is the alliance of 15 different countries, and the euro, which is the single currency. They are all distinct and separate in our minds, but not always in the minds of the general public.
	First, I shall try to dispel the myth that I—or any other Eurosceptic—must be somehow anti-Europe. The two qualities are very different. Europe is the name given to a group of countries that are geographical neighbours. One cannot be against Europe any more than one can be against Australia, Africa or any other continent. Most of us visit countries in Europe regularly, for holidays or, in my case, to visit my family in Sweden, which I do regularly. We all enjoy the variety of cultural and culinary treats that Europe has to offer. They include the horses on the Camargue, the Vatican City, the Vasa museum, Roquefort cheese and champagne, gnocchi and baklava—the list is endless. Let us therefore hear no more about anyone who happens to be Eurosceptic being anti-Europe, because the phrase is meaningless.
	This country's entry into the single currency depends, according to the Chancellor, on his five so-called economic tests. The Chancellor says that if those tests are complied with, it would be in our best interests to join. That is not so—absolutely not so. The economic argument is only one facet of a whole spectrum of aspects to consider in making that momentous move. The decision is a political one. It would be an irrevocable step towards membership of a European superstate—the ever closer union that is openly talked about in all the other member states. For some reason, however, a pretence is maintained in this country that the decision is merely economic.
	Joining the eurozone would mean that Britain would sign up to common policies that are set for all member countries. Given those countries' widely differing circumstances, those common policies could not possibly be right for all of them. For the lucky ones, it would be a case of one size fits one or two, some of the time; in contrast, the unlucky countries would have no power to do anything about the policies imposed on them. Moreover, who would be making the decisions that would affect the lives of everyone in this country? The answer is bureaucrats in another country, for whom nobody here had ever voted, and whom nobody could dismiss from office.
	Britain is a successful country. We attract more inward investment than the rest of the EU. There is no groundswell of demand from the electorate to hand over control of our economy—and much, much more—to Europe. There is no need to join the single currency, there is no justification for joining, and we should not join.
	At least we have been promised a referendum on joining the common currency, and the electorate will have the opportunity to make its views known. There is, of course, an incipient problem attached to that. The Government have already made up their mind. They think that they know what is best for us. The yes campaign will be generously tax-funded. People will be bombarded with television adverts and literature that they have paid for themselves, persuading them to give up the pound and the independence of their Government, just so that they do not have to bother changing their currency when they go on holiday.
	However, the British people are not so shallow or short-sighted. They will not agree to surrender the sovereignty of their country. That explains the delay in holding the referendum, as the Prime Minister knows that he will lose. How many people realise that England's name has not featured on the map of Europe for several years? England is sub-divided, rather prematurely and optimistically, into regions, ready for the long-term objective of absorption into a new country called Europe.
	Just as we thought that matters could not get worse, along came the constitution—a constitution that, according to the Government, has no constitutional implications. It is designed to establish a fully fledged political state. That is the "tidying-up exercise" to which the Government intend to commit us without so much as a by your leave.
	Of the European constitution, in the Labour party election manifesto, mention was there none. My right hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) have, at a much higher academic level than I can even attempt, made forensic analyses of the draft provisions of the constitution. We must have another look at what the Government intend to sign us up to. Existing European treaties will be repealed, and the new Union—not the one that the 10 candidate countries have applied to join—will have its own legal personality and extensive new legal powers.
	The constitution and Union law
	"shall have primacy over the law of the Member States."
	Europe will have exclusive competence—for competence, read power—over policies such as trade and commerce, the free movement of people and negotiation of international agreements. There will be shared competences, for which we are supposed to be grateful, in other areas, including the internal market, agriculture, fisheries, energy, social policy, environment, public health, consumer protection and freedom, security and justice. What could be more important than those areas?
	We should note the weasel words, mentioned by other speakers, which say:
	"The Member States shall exercise their competences"
	only if, and
	"to the extent that the Union has not exercised . . . . its".
	On, for example, criminal justice—a topical subject if ever there was one—Europe will be able to tell Parliament what is or is not an offence in our own country. The constitution allows for the creation of a European public prosecutor's office, and for making a European Court the final arbiter overseeing British law. Europe will pass a series of laws over visas, border controls and asylum.
	Brussels will be in charge of our economic policy. Under the constitution, it will have major influence over our public spending and borrowing, even if we do not join the euro.

David Drew: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Watkinson: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I will not, because I am short of time.
	The constitution provides a way for Brussels to get round our veto on taxation decisions by qualified majority voting on "administrative co-operation"—interpret those words as you will. Employment and social policy will be dictated, so that our advantage in having a flexible labour market will be lost. European terms and conditions of employment could damage British businesses.
	There will be common foreign and defence policies, and we will have to rely on the EU to guarantee our security. In fact, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, there will be little scope for this Parliament ever to make any decisions at all. The authority to run our country will have been given away, without the consent of the general public and without so much as a whiff of the cost-benefit analysis to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) referred.
	Oh yes, there is another small matter—the vote demanded in a referendum on the constitution arranged by the Daily Mail, which the Prime Minister has signalled he intends to ignore, but in which 1.5 million people took part. I know that that has no legal status, but one cannot ignore 1.5 million people, 97 per cent. of whom said that they wanted a referendum.
	The Prime Minister has no mandate to sign us up to the constitution. This treaty is of even greater significance than the euro. It will change this country fundamentally. It will sweep away democracy as we know it, replacing our Government with an unelected judiciary answerable to no one. We have been promised a referendum on the euro. The people now demand one on the constitution.
	There is a different way forward. It is the better way forward for those of us who love our country, support the monarchy, and cherish our long history on which our traditions have been built. We could be part of a Europe of democracies—an enlarged, flexible, co-operating European partnership of independent, self-governing, free trading, good neighbours, lightly regulated, decentralised and outward-looking to take advantage of global opportunities—and the massive savings from our contribution to the current-style Union could be spent at home.

Richard Spring: We certainly have had a fine debate with some excellent speeches. We heard a variety of views that all reflected a common sense of concern about where this is all leading us. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) has just arrived and I pay tribute to her. She has done a lot of work that we value on the role of national Parliaments. I think that we can all draw some encouragement from what the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon about turning her yellow cards into red cards. We need to explore that and I hope that the Government will do so assertively in the coming months. We shall certainly support them if they do that in a way that really returns powers to national Parliaments.
	That echoes the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who said yes to subsidiarity, but posed the question of how we effect it. It is an essential point. We have put forward plans to do it. Unless we assert subsidiarity, instead of just talking about it, the disconnection between the peoples of Europe and its institutions will only grow.
	We heard an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). Among other things, he touched on how important it is that NATO and the transatlantic relationship are maintained and nurtured in these difficult times.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) made an outstanding speech. He said that the constitution has been set in stone, which is correct: it is obvious what it will be. He also talked about the so-called escalator clause, which would again diminish the role of our national Parliament. He mentioned the European Union legal personality, with the impact that its security, defence and policing policies would have—all important areas. I entirely agree with him about the rotating presidency. It is hugely important that the smaller countries feel part of this and that the permanent presidency is not some stitch-up by the larger countries for some former Prime Minister or President.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) talked about the role that the European Court of Justice will play in foreign affairs as well as that of the proposed minister for foreign affairs and the impact on diminishing national Parliaments.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) said that one of the difficulties with the attitude of the British people towards the European Union is that there has been no sense of finality; I absolutely agree. As people do not know where the process will end and there has been a ratchet effect over the years, of course there has been a suspension of belief in what politicians are saying. Where it will end must be defined.
	The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) talked about the euro. He warned of the dangers and cited the problems in Germany. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) very tellingly took up that point. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) talked of the cost of the European Union and the need for us to appraise objectively trade flows, the net costs and the benefits to the United Kingdom.
	Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said that Laeken would bring the institutions of the European Union closer to the people. I do not believe that that has happened.
	In his speech, "A Blueprint for the New Europe", which I believe the Foreign Secretary gave yesterday, he talked about the final draft treaty that emerges from the intergovernmental conference and said that it would be judged against a number of standards. He asked
	"first, and above all, will the draft provide the institutional blueprint the Union needs to make EU enlargement work?"
	I accept that that is a necessity. He also said that clarity should be introduced so that people have a better understanding of the European Union, about which I agree. It was telling, however, that probably the single most important thing that was left out of the checklist was returning a sense of ownership of the European Union and its institutions to the peoples of Europe. That must be at the heart of all the arrangements that he talked about. What has emerged out of the Convention, and what is most likely to emerge from the intergovernmental conference, does not satisfactorily address that point.
	I pay tribute to the UK members of the Convention, particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells. In the context of my comments, however, it is worth noting the observation of Lord Tomlinson, who said:
	"I am also critical of the fact that the Convention gold-plated its mandate. Nothing in the Laeken mandate told the Convention that it had to draw up a constitutional treaty."
	Last week, the Foreign Secretary told us that what is likely to emerge at the intergovernmental conference, based on the Convention's proposals, will not alter the fundamental constitutional balance between the European Union's institutions and the member nation states. He echoed implicitly the view of the Leader of the House that it had all been a tidying-up exercise. That very afternoon, in the Palace of Westminster, the two former Ministers for Europe hosted a celebration party for the accession countries. It was attended by distinguished representatives of our EU partner countries and accession states, with whom I discussed the view of the Foreign Secretary that the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act were far more important constitutionally than the tidying-up exercise that we are now facing. Their reactions ranged from disbelief to the utterly unprintable.
	On Friday last week, two days after the debate, the German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, whom we are told is a strong candidate to be the first European foreign minister, declared that it is
	"the most important treaty since the formation of the European Economic Community".
	I certainly know whom to believe. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and I meet dozens of politicians and political commentators from our EU partner countries, and let me tell Ministers that not one shares the view of the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House about the Convention and its constitutional importance.
	That leads me to the point made explicitly in the House last week by my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples): successive Governments have sought to put a gloss on developments in the EU and have all too often been in denial of the reality of unfolding events and policies. Whatever one's view of the EU, that is a simple truth, which was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor).
	Let us look at the Government's performance in its dealings with the EU. Before Nice, a view had been expressed that the accession process could be simple, but in the event we had a major treaty. We were told that there was no need for substantial extensions of QMV, but that happened at Nice, and then we had the proclamation of the charter of fundamental rights. We had understood that the Government did not even favour a Convention. They started off being opposed to a written constitution—certainly one that included the charter of fundamental rights—but, typically, they changed their mind, being carried along in the slipstream by others.
	The simple truth is that in the build-up to the enlargement, our Government, unlike other Governments, never set out a clear view of what the European Union's architecture should look like. I very much agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife that we should have a White Paper setting out the implications of the proposed changes in the constitutional relationships within the European Union. We have had speeches from the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House correctly analysing the disconnection between the peoples of Europe and EU institutions, and endlessly talking about how elites were running the show, but never producing policies to address those challenges. The only major policy commitment that we have ever heard from the Government was the truly fatuous idea, proposed by the Prime Minister, that there should be a second chamber of the European Parliament.
	When the charter of fundamental rights was being proclaimed at Nice we were told that it had no significance whatever, yet, even then, the European Commission told us:
	"It can reasonably be expected that the Charter will become mandatory through the Court's interpretation of it as belonging to the general principles of Community law."
	Indeed, it has already been invoked in court cases. The idea that the charter has no application in British law and no impact on our country is palpable and misleading nonsense.
	The Commission stated that the charter would mark
	"a turning-point in the integration of Europe, moving it away from the essentially economic logic of its origins to becoming a real political Union".
	The incorporation of the charter is part of the European Court of Justice's jurisprudence; it affects the Court's judgments and will form part of European law. The idea that it will not apply to us is ridiculous. We shall increasingly have judge-led law in this country, and there is nothing that the British people dislike more than judge-led law over which they can have no control.
	We have heard about the reform of the common agricultural policy. The reform process was hijacked from under the very nose of the Government—it was breathtaking. For all the Government's talk about their influence in Europe, the whole reform process of the CAP has been moved away from them by the French and the Germans, greatly to the disadvantage of the whole enlargement process. It is a matter of great regret that the Government had so little influence in that debate.
	As we have heard, Laeken was supposed to bring European citizens closer to European institutions, but the march of centralisation and harmonisation has continued. The ratchet process has proceeded unimpeded.
	In the Chamber, we heard the Foreign Secretary admit that he was wrong about the greatest geopolitical challenge in the latter half of the 20th century—how to face up to the challenge of totalitarianism in Europe. I respect him for his honesty. However, once again, the Labour party has characteristically made a fundamental misjudgment.

Jack Straw: Will the hon. Gentleman explain when I said what he has just referred to?

Richard Spring: I should be happy to supply the right hon. Gentleman with the Hansard reference. I remember the occasion well; it was when he accepted that his view on unilateral disarmament had been wrong in a particular judgment. We all thought that it was impressive for him to have owned up to that—[Interruption.] Fine, I am glad that he accepts that.
	The EU evolved from a wholly legitimate desire to bring peace and stability to our continent, and it succeeded admirably. Unfortunately, the bloc mentality that informed the thinking of many post-war European politicians is completely frozen in time; it is irrelevant to the needs of a modern, functioning, successful European Community of 25 nations. The interventionist and dirigiste mentality that would centralise and harmonise the functioning of the member states is wholly unsuited to the world in which we live.
	Our European demography, our lack of competitiveness and our inability to create employment are problems that require flexibility and competitive tax structures, not a political structure that incorporates a job-destroying social agenda. That is the product of ossified thinking that has no relevance in the 21st century, but it will be enforced and put into effect by judges, constitutions and charters.
	All those matters should be challenged and addressed by the Government at the meeting in Thessaloniki, but I very much doubt that that will happen, judged on the Government's performance in their relations with the EU since they took office. I passionately want the EU to work, but it will not do so unless and until we return a sense of ownership to the people of Europe. The way to do that, at this hugely important moment in the history of the EU, is to listen to the voice of the people and to offer them a referendum.

Denis MacShane: We have had a good debate—about the third or fourth in this Chamber or Westminster Hall almost entirely devoted to the Convention, and there will be another such full-scale debate before the House rises for the summer recess. I hope that hon. Members will then take away the draft constitution and read it carefully, day after day, on the beaches, whether they are in Europe, Britain or further afield.
	We all know and like the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who speaks on Europe for the Opposition. He is terrific fun to be with, but when he starts to talk about Europe, I am reminded of the ranting Trotskyists whom I used to listen to at trade union conferences 25 years ago. That is the problem. There is a kind of Tory-Trotskyist mentality on Europe. He does not want a referendum to consult the people; he wants a referendum simply to say no to Europe. That is the Conservative party's policy.
	I had hoped that the debate would be about the Council, for which the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and myself will leave tomorrow. What are the issues there? One of the more important issues that we will discuss is the remarkable vote in favour of Europe by all our allies and friends in eastern and central Europe. They are saying yes to Europe, as the Czechs did on Friday and Saturday and as the Poles did two weeks before.
	Have we had a word of welcome today for those new members? We have not. All I hear when I meet representatives of the Conservative, Christian Democrat and other right-wing parties in government or opposition anywhere in the existing Union of 15 states is, "What is wrong with Britain's Conservative party?" or "Why are they so fanatically anti-European?", and they read the literature like anyone else.
	Last week, in the House, I drew attention to the views of the Conservative MEP, Mr. Roger Helmer, who stated in his newsletter:
	"It is not yet party policy to withdraw from the EU. But it is, perhaps, an idea whose time is coming".
	I find that, not so long ago, the same Mr. Helmer said:
	"EU membership is the greatest threat to Britain's prosperity, democracy and security."
	Speaking for the Conservative party in the European Parliament, not disowned by anyone, he said:
	"The great task of our generation is European deconstruction."
	That is what the Government have to deal with—not a reasoned, rational debate about Europe, but the obsession with saying no to Europe and with premature withdrawal. Some Conservatives would like to negotiate a withdrawal; others would like to withdraw after a referendum, but there is a constant message.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Denis MacShane: I shall address some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made, and I shall give way to him then.
	There is an obsession with withdrawal. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) states in his latest pamphlet that it would be possible to stop the constitution coming into place. Of course, that would effectively make enlargement unworkable. He said:
	"In practice, if a country voted no to the Constitution, the matter would eventually have to be resolved politically. The state concerned would probably allow the others to go ahead, having negotiated an associate membership of some kind, from a position of some strength."
	That is the Conservative party's policy.
	In 1996, the leader of the Conservative party expressed that view when he sought leave
	"to bring in a Bill to amend the European Communities Act 1972 so as to provide by Order in Council for the disapplication within the United Kingdom of judgments, rules and doctrines propounded by the European Court."—[Official Report, 23 April 1996; Vol. 276, c. 198.]
	So that is it: an end to the Common Market, an end to the single market, an end to the free trade area and an end to the powers handled through the EU to make such things work, which have to be enforced and have been enforced since 1957 by the European Court of Justice.
	We can see such views again on the Order Paper in early-day motion 1355, entitled "Euro Poll". Do the hon. Members who tabled it demand a referendum to consult the British people? No. That early-day motion says:
	"The UK should never join the euro; welcomes this view; and calls on the Government to . . . rule out the euro in the foreseeable future."
	In other words, the early-day motion does not demand a referendum, it simply says no to Europe.

Richard Spring: rose—

Denis MacShane: I shall finish this point before I give way.
	We have seen the extraordinary sight—a collectors' item—of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who is a member of the hard core of anti-European fanatics with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and the leader of the Conservative party, being interviewed on Sky Television by Adam Boulton. Boulton did a Paxman on the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He asked him six times whether he would accept the result of a referendum on the euro if the result were yes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman could not bring himself to accept that. He refused to answer the question, just as he refused to answer Jeremy Paxman's question during that wonderful moment that we all enjoyed on "Newsnight" a few years ago.
	The fundamental point with which we must deal and which the British people must understand is that the Conservative party is opposed to Europe. It wants to withdraw from Europe and to renegotiate our position in Europe. It is right that the British people should understand that.

Richard Spring: rose—

John Redwood: rose—

Denis MacShane: I shall give way to my opposite number first.

Richard Spring: The Minister is halfway through his speech, so I was wondering when he will turn to the subject at hand: what the British Government's policy will be to serve our national self-interest at the European Council meeting.

Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members could have addressed the current issues facing the European Union and the agenda at the European Council, but instead they repeated Daily Mail editorials in favour of isolating us from Europe.

John Redwood: rose—

Denis MacShane: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment.

Jim Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you remind my hon. Friend the Minister that if he reads the Order Paper, he will note that the motion makes specific reference to the European Scrutiny Committee's report on the Convention, which means that none of the contributions were out of order?

Denis MacShane: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to deal with a point of order. The Minister will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and I do not think that it was a point of order for the Chair.

Denis MacShane: The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) asserted that the proposed constitutional treaty would lead to the creation of a European federal superstate. He could not make that speech in Paris and tell President Chirac that he is about to sign away the sovereignty of France to a federal superstate. He could not make that speech seriously in any other capital.

William Cash: Vichy.

Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman refers to Vichy. We can see the real nature of the Conservative party on the Opposition Benches: anti-French, anti-European and unpleasant about everyone with whom we must deal as our partners. I am sure that those remarks will be well noted in Paris and well noted by the conservative parties of France.

John Redwood: rose—

Denis MacShane: I promised the right hon. Gentleman that I would give way and I always keep my promises.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) cited a wonderful quote from Mr. Amato, who said that the constitutional conventioneers wanted a boy and ended up with a girl. [Laughter.] I believe that I am quoting my hon. Friend correctly. As the father of four daughters, I find that comment wonderfully encouraging but, of course, our party has allowed women to have some place—although not enough—on the Benches of the House. When the Conservative party reflects the population of the country, it might actually come forward with some serious points.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) talked about the necessity of reforming the common agricultural policy, and I agree with him. We need to take forward that argument, but not to the British people—we are all agreed. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) referred to my noble Friend Baroness Amos and her denunciation of the CAP. We need to have the argument in French, Italian, German and Spanish. I invite the Opposition to play the European game seriously and talk to their opposite numbers on the continent if they want to change the CAP, but they are so isolated from them—perhaps because they have no opposite numbers—that they cannot do that.

John Redwood: Will the Minister give way?

Denis MacShane: I am about to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's point. In the press release that he distributed and in his speech he referred, I think, to a revolutionary and dangerous new point in the constitutional treaty and set out what the constitutional treaty was putting before the people of Europe. His press release states:
	"Member states shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the acts adopted to the Union in this area."
	It then goes into capital letters—we all know what it is like to get letters from our constituents that have been typed in capitals—to say:
	"THEY SHALL REFRAIN FROM ACTION CONTRARY TO THE UNION'S INTEREST OR LIKELY TO IMPAIR ITS EFFECTIVENESS."
	The revolutionary new language which the right hon. Gentleman said would be imposed on the British people by a secret veto comes from existing Union treaties signed by the Government of whom he was a member. It is the same old language in existing treaties and the same old anti-EU speech from the right hon. Gentleman.

John Redwood: The whole point is that that policy would then be justiciable under the European Court of Justice. I said that in relation to the wide-ranging aims of the new document, which is revolutionary. Will the Minister stop this travesty and understand that the Conservatives want to negotiate a much better deal for the British people? What is he going to negotiate out of this document so that we still have a country left to govern?

Denis MacShane: It is exactly that sort of language that makes the case for those of us who want to stay in the EU. The right hon. Gentleman will know as well as I do that the common foreign and security policy is explicitly excluded, even in the existing draft constitution, from the Court's remit.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) asked whether the language referring to ever-closer union would be in the constitutional treaty. I am happy to tell him that it will not. Instead, language is used that refers to Europe in the context of helping
	"the weakest and most deprived; that it wishes to remain a continent open to culture, learning and social progress; and that it wishes to deepen the democratic nature of its public life, and to strive for peace, justice and solidarity throughout the world".
	Peace, justice and solidarity are not concepts that Conservative Members usually support. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that we want such language not just for our EU, but for the new neighbours that want to join it.

Ian Davidson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Denis MacShane: I am afraid that I cannot. There will be another long debate on the Convention and we can exchange views then.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). It is important to get his comment on the record because he is a Conservative Member. He said that the EU is an agent for good. Let it be quoted from Hansard that at least one Conservative MP said that.
	The question again and again was whether the British people will have a say. Yes, they will have a vote. They will have a veto. They will vote at the next general election on whether they support a party or parties that believe in British membership of the EU or whether they support the Conservative party. As we heard today, the Conservative party is not only opposed to Europe—it does not even make cheap remarks about France—but calls for a renegotiation that will mean withdrawal from Europe. As long as this Government are in office we will speak up for Britain in Europe. The British people will vote for the party that says yes to Europe. They will vote no to the party that wants us out of Europe and express their veto that way.

Derek Twigg: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

FINANCE AND SERVICES COMMITTEE

Ordered,
	That Keith Hill be discharged from the Finance and Services Committee and Mr Bob Ainsworth be added.—[Derek Twigg.] PETITION

Cliffe Airport

Bob Spink: With the consultation period on the future development of air transport in the south-east coming to an end in a couple of weeks on 30 June, it is appropriate that I present a petition against the Government's inappropriate proposal to build an airport at Cliffe, which is just across the Thames from Canvey Island and the rest of my constituency. The good people of Castle Point are deeply afraid of the damage that that proposal would do to them, so they have raised a petition in the following terms:
	To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled:
	The Humble Petition of concerned residents of South East Essex and surrounding areas, including Kate Mariapa, Cllr Dorothy Best and others sheweth
	The Government's Cliffe Airport option, with its flight path over South Essex, operational 24 hours a day, would cause unacceptable damage to people's quality of life and to the environment.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Government to rescind its Cliffe Airport option at the earliest possible moment.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

Kittle Post Office

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Martin Caton: I cannot remember how many times I have sat in the Chamber and heard hon. Members from all political parties and from all parts of the United Kingdom pay tribute to the central role that the local post office plays in our communities, particularly our rural communities. Indeed, I have done so myself before this evening, on more than one occasion.
	Whether we are talking about the contribution of specific post offices in our constituencies or, more generally, about the role of the wider post office network, there is a consensus across the House that British post offices are vital facilities, especially to many of our most vulnerable citizens, and that they need defending and developing. In recent years, faced with the prospect of post office closures, the Government and the House have spent a fair amount of time speaking about how we can find new forms of business for our local post offices to help make or keep them viable. Increasingly, we see the provision of banking services spreading through the network, the general practitioner experiment in Leicestershire, which does not seem to have been rolled out yet, rate relief schemes, and even direct financial support.
	All those schemes are welcome and represent a clear recognition of the importance of the local post office. It plays a crucial social and economic role, offering 170 different services and products, its existence often making the local shop viable when otherwise it would not be. Sub-post masters and their post offices also play an invaluable part in many communities by providing support for vulnerable residents, including elderly and disabled people. Often, they will interpret official letters, find lost property, take messages and offer emotional as well as practical support. It is such a postmaster and his wife about whom I shall speak briefly this evening, but before doing so, I shall set the situation in the village of Kittle in my constituency in the wider context of the post office network in rural Wales.
	I am a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which over recent years has investigated the impact of post office closures on local communities, and in particular what the Post Office was doing to keep local post offices open, or to find replacements when that was not possible. We were assured that Post Office Ltd. would do all it reasonably could to avoid the closure of post office branches in rural areas. We were also told about the consultation procedure agreed between Post Office Ltd. and the Consumer Council for Postal Services, Postwatch, which gave the strong impression that the Post Office was willing to listen to and respond positively wherever possible to the concerns of local communities. In the case that I am about to describe, I believe that Post Office management at regional level and possibly higher has not done all it reasonably can to avoid a closure, and it has failed to respond positively to the views of its customers in Kittle and the surrounding area.
	John Mizen and his wife Lynda took over Kittle post office in February 2000. In doing so, they signed a contract that required them to keep the post office open between 9 am and 5.30 pm. They do not dispute that. They signed the contract in the expectation and hope that they would be able to manage under such a regime. However, as they set themselves to providing the service to their customers and building a very good reputation for the quality of that service, they found the requirement to keep the post office open without a lunch break burdensome and that it even impacted on their health and well-being.
	In July last year, the Mizens therefore contacted the local Post Office management to request that their contract be reconsidered. They were informed of the procedure that they should follow. Essentially, it consisted of auditing the customer services that they provided between 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock over a month and consulting their customers about the possibility of the post office being closed at that time. They did that and submitted the results, which showed very low demand, to Post Office Ltd. in Bridgend with a request for a variation of contract hours, as is allowed for in Post Office rules.
	The Mizens made that submission last September, with a request that the new hours, with lunchtime closure, should begin in the new year on 3 January 2003. They were confident that they would be granted the variation that they requested. However, even by mid-January, they had heard nothing in response, so they contacted the Post Office management saying that, as they had heard nothing, they presumed that their request had been agreed to and would therefore begin the new hours in the following month, February. They were told that they could not do that and that management would have to conduct its own review. No explanation was given as to why such a review had not been carried out between September, when the submission was made, and January, when the proposed changes would have started. Following the management review, they were told that they could not shut the post office for lunch in any circumstances. No reasons or details of the review findings were provided.
	That has been one of the most worrying aspects of this whole sorry episode. Post Office management has failed to engage with Mr. and Mrs. Mizen in any meaningful way. In my view, that is a failure by the management properly to carry out its duty to manage positively. No wonder that Mr. and Mrs. Mizen were now at the end of their tether and deeply frustrated. They decided to close the post office for lunch periods anyway from 3 February. On 14 February, they were warned that, if they continued to close for lunch, they would be in breach of their contract, which could put it at risk. Still no rationale was provided and no offer was made to discuss the situation, let alone negotiate a way forward. The same was true on 11 March, when management was again pressed to reconsider the matter. There was still no real and meaningful communication about the central issue.
	On 7 April, Mr. and Mrs. Mizen were given notice because they were not in compliance with their contract. However, Post Office Ltd. has, to date, failed to find anyone else in the village to run the post office. That means that it plans to close the branch that the Mizens run on 7 July without an alternative in the village. It says that the post office will be closed temporarily, while it finds a new sub-postmaster, but the head of the area community network for the post office appears to have set her mind against allowing Mr. Mizen to be considered for any new contract.
	The situation in which my constituents in Kittle find themselves is as follows. First, they were asked whether they minded the post office closing for a lunch break and they said "No problem." Notwithstanding that, Post Office management, confident that it knows what is best for them, and after messing the Mizens about for several months, said that the post office must stay open for that lunchtime period. As the Mizens did not go along with that, they were given notice to quit and the post office will close in about three weeks if nothing is done. So, to keep a post office open during the lunch period when its customers do not want to use it, Post Office management is prepared to withdraw all post office services from those customers for an indefinite period. I have to say that the logic defies me.
	Having received dozens of letters from people in Kittle and post office customers from neighbouring villages, I have tried to explore management's thinking. I have exchanged letters with the head of the area community network. Her position, as I understand it, is as follows:
	"This is about a serious and wilful breach of contract, the consequences of which were clearly explained to Mr. Mizen on several occasions."
	In response to the question whether the contract is right for this post office, when the customers have made their views so clear, she informs me:
	"It is the responsibility of Post Office Ltd line management to determine the service criteria. This is largely dependent on the amount of work conducted at the office which then reflects the type of contract that is applicable."
	In this case, Kittle post office is appropriate for a scale payment office contract and the standard contract hours for service are Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5.30 pm. I honestly believe that the Post Office needs to find a way of introducing the views of its customers into its contract letting and variation procedures. It must be prepared to show far more flexibility if it is to attract and keep good sub-postmasters. That seems to be what those at the top of the organisation want as well.
	I asked regional management how many complaints it had received when Mr. Mizen closed for lunch. The answer was none. Let us contrast that with the hundreds of letters received, and the 700 signatures on a petition calling for Mr. Mizen to be allowed to close for lunch.
	I think that a central problem in what is now an open dispute is a practical problem. The head of the post office community network in Wales does not accept Mr. Mizen's claim that he cannot have a lunch break if the post office remains open. She says
	"he has reportedly five members of staff—surely someone could cover for his absence."
	On the surface that seems reasonable, but three of Mr. Mizen's staff are in full-time education and therefore work very few hours. They never work at lunchtime. The other two are good shop workers, but are not interested in learning to do the post office work. Mrs. Mizen has other work to do, as well as family commitments.
	Even if a trained post office worker was available, the need to keep two people covering such a quiet period—one dealing with the post office, the other on a shop till—would not stack up economically, and the business cannot sustain it. In practice, Mr. Mizen loses his lunch break—with health and welfare consequences—if he complies with his contract.
	I fear that some clues may be provided to the depth of consideration given to the issue by management in a letter that I, along with other interested parties, have been sent by management. The letter, headed "Important Information—Temporary Closure" states
	"Kittle Branch Post Office will close on 9th July 2003."
	In fact, it is to close on 7 July. The letter identifies post offices in neighbouring villages that Kittle customers will be forced to use. Under a "Disabled Access" heading, it states that Bishopston branch has level access. It has no such access. It says that car parking is available outside Murton branch post office. It is not; there is a bus stop. It gives the wrong opening hours for Southgate branch post office. I think that that ignorance of the situation on the ground in those communities in my constituency demonstrates the real problem: a failure to listen to local voices.
	I am not asking for a new and irreversible precedent to be set. Last year in Gower, in the village of Three Crosses just a few miles from Kittle, the post office was granted exactly the sort of variation of hours that the Mizens seek. I believe that the avenue we are going down will mean everyone losing out—the Mizens, the post office and, most important of all, the people of Kittle and the surrounding area who use the post office. Of course, the main losers will be the least well off, the least mobile and the least independent.
	It seems to me that heels have been dug in rather too deeply, and that the position should be reviewed by Post Office management at a higher level than that at which the decisions have been made so far. I am sure that if that happens common sense can prevail, and the Kittle post office can be maintained as the vital resource that it undoubtedly is.
	I have written to the chief executive of Post Office Ltd. requesting a meeting to discuss the situation in Kittle, and an opportunity to present the 700-signature petition collected by the Kittle community in support of the Mizens. I shall be asking him to arrange for the decisions made so far to be re-examined, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me that he will try to facilitate such a review.
	My confidence that if good sense prevails there can be a satisfactory outcome and a secure future for the current Kittle post office has been bolstered by what the chairman of Royal Mail told the conference of the National Federation of SubPostmasters yesterday. In his speech in Scarborough Mr. Leighton outlined plans for post office branches to sell a comprehensive range of financial services in the future, including unsecured personal loans, a Post Office credit card, saving accounts and motor and life insurance. All that will be welcome, as it will increase post offices' income streams.
	Mr. Leighton also described plans to give sub-postmasters a greater say in the running of their branches, to provide better incentives for them to make a profit, and to introduce more flexibility to encourage entrepreneurial flair. That too is excellent news. I agree with Mr. Leighton that while the next two years will be challenging, the post office network has a bright future.
	Let me end by quoting a couple of parts of Mr. Leighton's speech, which I think are relevant to the situation in Kittle. He said
	"We are determined to put our Post Office branches on a better financial footing by giving customers the products they want and letting subpostmasters get on with the job of running their branches to suit their customers."
	Hear, hear to that. It is what I want, what Mr. Mizen wants and what the people of Kittle want.
	Mr. Leighton then went on to say:
	"Other changes to make Post Office branches more attractive to customers will include extended or more flexible opening hours, with subpostmasters deciding when their branches should be open to attract most customers."
	If the chairman of Royal Mail and his chief executive, David Mills, really believe those words, they need to investigate what has been happening at Kittle and to stop this nonsensical closure going ahead while they do so.

Stephen Timms: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on securing the debate. I agree with much of what he said about the important role of post offices in local communities, both rural and urban. He rightly raised a number of issues of wider interest beyond Kittle about the future of the post office network, but I shall begin by concentrating on the particular post office that he is, understandably, concerned about.
	I must make the point, though, that he will be heartened by the general trend in post office closures in Wales. As he knows, we have made a commitment that there should be no avoidable rural closures. Kittle is designated a rural post office. The number of closures in Wales has fallen sharply in the past couple of years. In the year ending March 2000, 31 Welsh post offices closed. In the following year the number was 68. In the year ending March 2002 it was 26; in the year ending March 2003 it was 18. We have made good progress in reducing the number of closures in Wales.
	I am worried that my hon. Friend said that inaccurate information was given in the course of the closure process. I was informed that the post office was due to close on 9 July; he told us that the date is actually 7 July. Perhaps more serious are the inaccuracies that he mentioned concerning the status of the alternative post offices that people will have to go to instead.
	On the central issue of whether it is right to insist on opening hours that are consistent with the sub-postmaster's contract, I must say that I agree with Post Office Ltd. about that, and I shall explain why. My hon. Friend explained that the background is a disagreement between the sub-postmaster and Post Office Ltd., following a request from the sub-postmaster for a variation in opening hours that would allow him to close the post office counters in his shop for an hour at lunchtime while the retail side of the business remained open. In considering such requests, Post Office Ltd. takes a range of factors into account, including the level of transactions undertaken and the trading hours of other retail outlets in the vicinity. In this case, Post Office Ltd. concluded that the level of business was sufficient to justify a full-time branch. The post office is in a parade of shops that all offer lunchtime opening and attract passing trade. It is on a fairly busy road and is used by holidaymakers travelling through the village. All those factors, combined with the sub-postmaster's intention to keep open the retail side of the business at lunchtime, led to Post Office Ltd. rejecting his request.
	My hon. Friend raised several concerns about the lack of contact between the sub-postmaster and Post Office management during that process, and I shall certainly ask my officials to check that serious matter. Whatever the deficiencies in the process, however, the sub-postmaster subsequently advised that notwithstanding his obligations under his contract—my hon. Friend said that that is not in dispute, as it is very clear—he would go ahead and close the branch at lunchtime.
	My hon. Friend quoted remarks made yesterday by Allan Leighton at the annual conference of the National Federation of SubPostmasters in Scarborough. The trend needs to be towards longer opening hours for sub-post offices. Of course we can all remember the time, not so long ago, when many businesses shut at lunchtime. However, retail businesses, including banks, which formerly had short opening hours, have increasingly recognised that they need to open for longer hours to fulfil their customers' needs. Post offices can be no exception.
	The performance and innovation unit report, which was published in the summer of 2000, looked forward to a much stronger commercial future for sub-post offices and devised the description, "bigger, better, brighter." Longer opening hours play an important part in the way in which post offices better fulfil the needs of their customers, thereby attracting more customers and halting the decline throughout the country.
	In the case that my hon. Friend raises, the sub-postmaster was made fully aware of the consequences of his breach of contract. Post Office Ltd. tells me that it was left with no alternative other than to give the sub-postmaster three months' notice of termination in February. Post Office Ltd. has advertised the vacancy and is currently pursuing an application to operate the service from alternative premises. I understand that, at least at this stage, the applicant appears likely to be successful. On 5 June, Post Office Ltd. issued a temporary closure consultation letter because the new branch is unlikely to be operational by 9 July. The Post Office greatly regrets—as I do—the interruption to service provision in Kittle. However, I am advised that it will be temporary and that a new post office should be operational as soon as possible.
	It is important to understand the broader context and the way in which the issues relate to aspects of the contractual terms and arrangements between Post Office Ltd. and 17,000 sub-postmasters throughout the country. The Post Office was established as a public corporation in 1969 and it has been successive Governments' policy that decisions about the day-to-day running of postal businesses, such as contractual terms and conditions, are the operational responsibility of the board and management. The Government's role in Post Office matters is confined to broad general policy and overall financial control.
	All sub-postmasters and franchisees are appointed under contract as agents to provide services. They are not Post Office employees. As agents, their contractual terms and conditions differ significantly from those of an employee. A sub-postmaster's contract is a commercial arrangement between himself and Post Office Ltd. As a standard condition of the contract, both parties can give three months' notice of termination and neither party is required to give reasons. There is no right of appeal on either side. The contract is designed to be even-handed. Sub-postmasters terminate contracts far more frequently than Post Office Ltd.
	Several references have been made to the conference of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, which I addressed on Monday. The federation fully supports the principle that underpins the current arrangements, because if one sub-post office provides a poor service, that strengthens the view that the whole network deals shabbily with its customers. That is an important consideration for the National Federation of SubPostmasters and everybody else who works in the Post Office network. It wants people to perceive the Post Office as a modern organisation that, with other retail organisations, is anxious to fulfil its customers' needs and provide a good service, especially as regards opening hours.
	Those arrangements have been in place for a long time. There will occasionally be disputes about the background to a decision by Post Office Ltd. to terminate a contract. That is probably inevitable, given the sheer size of the network and the number of people who work in it. On the whole, however, the arrangements appear to operate satisfactorily, from the perspective of the sub-postmasters and of the company. As I have said, I will investigate my hon. Friend's concerns about what seems to have been rather limited contact in the course of the process that he described.
	The Post Office maintains the most extensive retail network in Europe. It has more branches than all the banks and building societies in the UK combined. It is vital for the Government that the network should continue to provide services in every part of the country, as it does at present. Decisions relating to the operational arrangements for the postal businesses, including the contractual terms and arrangements relating to sub-postmasters, certainly need to remain the responsibility of Post Office Ltd., but I am certain that the chairman and chief executive will take note of the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised in this debate.
	My hon. Friend mentioned Your Guide—the experimental kiosk-based system in Leicestershire—and made the point that it had not yet been rolled out nationally. The Government contributed £25 million to the Your Guide pilot to test the concept of the "Government general practitioner" role for post offices, in line with the recommendations in the performance and innovation unit's report. The pilot showed that Your Guide would not provide a lifeline for rural post offices, as had been hoped. It was very popular with those who used it—people liked it and the postmasters liked having it—but only a small proportion of postmasters reported that it increased the number of people coming into the post office. I think that about 18 per cent. of the people involved in the pilot said that it had increased numbers.
	It was, of course, the intention that it would be possible to attract new customers by offering a new kiosk-based service. That was not the experience of the pilot, however. It was therefore concluded that it would not be good value for money in terms of the public spending that would be involved, given the quite substantial cost that would be associated with rolling out the pilot and establishing a nationwide system of kiosks in post offices.
	However, the pilot highlighted a number of areas in which Departments might deliver services in the future, and we are looking at those. A number of parties are also interested in a commercial approach to the provision of kiosks in post offices. A pilot started recently in Penwith, in Cornwall, with some quite ambitious aims. I suspect that in due course, we shall see some of the attractions of the Your Guide pilot being taken forward in different ways for the benefit of post offices in rural areas. We remain absolutely committed to the maintenance of a viable nationwide network of post offices in both rural and urban areas. In particular, we remain committed to ending the avoidable closure of post offices in rural areas, and we have backed that up with a commitment of £450 million over this year, next year and the year after. We have recently received European Commission approval for that spending.
	The PIU report set out a vision of a modern network with new business opportunities, and we are committed to implementing its recommendations. The package of support for the rural network, together with the introduction of the banking products to which my hon. Friend referred—which featured in Allan Leighton's speech to the National Federation of SubPostmasters yesterday—give a high degree of confidence that that vision will be achieved. At the conference on Monday, it was announced that Lloyd's TSB was close to enabling its customers to obtain cash from any post office in the country free of charge, by putting their cards into the PIN pads that are now in every branch and receiving cash over the counter. That is already happening for customers of Barclays, and of Alliance and Leicester. Nineteen million accounts with those three institutions will soon be accessible in that way from every post office in the country.
	That provides millions of people, for the first time in many cases, with a compelling reason to visit their local post office, and we hope that while they are there they will undertake other transactions as well. That is a valuable commercial opportunity for the post office network. There are also new financial services and products, including personal loans—Allan Leighton referred to those too—that represent an attractive commercial opportunity for the network.
	The combination of Government support and the expansion of banking products will help the network to continue to play its vital social role, which, as my hon. Friend said, is essential in rural areas—and, indeed, in urban areas, too. I shall certainly look into what he said about what seems to have been a rather unsatisfactory process leading to the decision in respect of the Kittle post office.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eight o'clock.

Deferred Division
	 — 
	Race Relations

That the draft Race Relations Act 1976 (Seamen Recruited Abroad) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.
	The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 16.

Question accordingly agreed to.